Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Kestrel Park_Ph3_PA-T2-2024-00054
I T Y O F January 21, 2025 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA -T2-2024-00054 Subject Property: Tax lot 8600 of assessor' map 39 -1E -04 -AD Applicant/Owner: Taylored Elements Construction for PDK Properties, LLC 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 The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to pro] ect completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.I of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: PDK Properties, LLC Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us SECTION 18.5.1.060.I L Appeal of Type II Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section 18.5.1.060.7. A Type II decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows. 1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following. a. The applicant. b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. Appeal Filing Procedure. a. Notice ofAppeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.1, above, may appeal a Type II decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. b. Time for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content ofNotice ofAppeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a parry, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time, and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting. Scope of Appeal. a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.L4.b, below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us I T Y O F together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the Council appeal hearing that the requesting parry has demonstrated one or more of the following. I. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the requesting parry, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error. ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting parry which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting parry, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting parry could have requested reconsideration. A requesting parry may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. iv. Re -opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the Council. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type II decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission. a. Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different, and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. b. Scope ofAppeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us I T Y O F remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.060.7. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. The public hearing record shall include the following information. a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal. b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the application that the City mailed or received. c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials submitted with it. d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open. e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available). f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application; g. The minutes of the hearing. g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type II applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type II applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -T2-2024-00054 A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 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 AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. OWNER: APPLICANT: CMK DEVELOPMENT LLC TAYLORED ELEMENTS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDERS. 1) The subject property is tax lot 48600 of Assessor's Map 39 -1E -04 -AD (it does not presently have a street address). The property was created as lot -31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. a. 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 of the subject property, as well as tax lots 7800 & 4900 which are both `street plugs' to be vacated. b. The main property is 2.27 acres in size and slopes from east to west at approximately 15% slope. 2) The property is zoned "North Mountain -Multi Family" (NM -MF) and is regulated by the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) which is codified at Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.5. This chapter applies to properties within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area adopted by Ordinance 2800 in April 1997. 3) 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 (PSO) Overlay (AMC 18.3.5.040.K). 4) On November 4, 2024 the application was submitted and described as follows: a. 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 five lots for multifamily housing. The 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. 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 PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 1 density of thirty-eight dwellings for the purposes of determining allowed density. 5) On December 9, the day before the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant informed staff that they were removing `area 7' and its proposed development from the application, and instead would plat the area as a single lot reserved for future development. a. On December 10, 2024 the applicant informed staff in writing that "Based on comments received from the neighboring property owners of the proposed Kestrel Park, Phase III application, the applicants have decided to withdraw area 7 from the application, including all associated entitlement requests such as the proposed property lines, tree removal and site review proposal. The applicants are still proposing to move forward with the remaining areas, area 4, 5 and b, but will eventually re -apply for entitlements for area 7 in the future." 6) The request, after the removal of area 7, is for outline plan approval for a 13 -lot PSO subdivision and Site Design Review approval. a. Proposed is a total of twelve -lots for residential development, eight of the lots are proposed for single-family residential (SFR) development (which may or may not eventually develop with ARU's). The Site Design Review includes four lots with a total of 16 -units of multi -family housing (area 6), as well as three buildings of attached single family (areas 4 and 5). The thirteenth lot will be reserved for the future development of area 7. b. Combined, this is a development density of twenty-two 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.) c. The application also includes a request for a variance to driveway width. 7) The applicant's proposal is detailed in plans which are on file at the Department of Community Development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 8) The criteria of approval for Outline Plan are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: A. the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. B. adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a 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. PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 2 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. 9) The supplemental approval criteria of the NMNP are described in AMC 18.3.5.030.0 as follows: 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. 10) The criteria for approval for Site Design Review are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: 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 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. PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 3 11) The criteria of approval for a Variance are described in AMC 18.5.5.030 as follows: 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. 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 land division approval previously granted to the applicant. 12) The criteria of approval for removal of a Tree that is Not a Hazard are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows 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. 13) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 10, 2024. a. At the beginning of the hearing, it was announced that `Area 7' was no longer part of the proposal and that the Planning Commission would only be considering the public improvements and Site Design Review for Areas 4, 5 and 6. 14) Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 4 and approved the application subject to conditions of approval. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS OF FACT 2.1 The Planning Commission notes that chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) is the City's Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The LUO regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient use of land resources among other goals. The Planning Commission notes that when considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the LUO. 2.1.2 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to render a decision based on the application itself, the December 10th Staff Report, the applicant's testimony, the exhibits received, and public testimony received both written and at the public hearing. 2.2 The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete and that the notice for the public hearing was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200 -feet of the subject property on, November 19, 2024 (21 days prior to the December 10th Meeting). 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the property is in the NMNP and as provided at AMC 18.3.5.040.K, "All applications involving the creation of three or more lots shall be processed under chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option Overlay." 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan of a Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision meets all applicable criteria for described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 and detailed below. 2.4.1 The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that "The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The Planning Commission notes that this is an all-encompassing criterion and that it has considered which City Ordinances are PA -T'2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 5 applicable. The Planning Commission notes that for the purposes of resolving this criterion we rely on the entirety of the record including the applicant's submittal, and the Staff Report dated December 10th. The Planning Commission notes that with the findings that are set out below, the approval of the exception to street standards discussed below, and the adopted conditions of approval that the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance requirements and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.2 The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that "Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity." The Planning Commission notes that this is the final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and all infrastructure installed in the previous phases were sized based on the total planned density. The Planning Commission notes that at the intersection of Stoneridge Ave. and Nandina St. that there is a maintenance hole where an eight -inch sanitary sewer will connect. The Planning Commission notes that at the same intersection there is also a storm drain catch basin that feeds into a twelve -inch main. The storm drain connects into existing retention facilities that were constructed in the first phase of the subdivision. The Planning Commission notes that each road that is proposed to be extended through the subdivision has either a six- or eight -inch water main that will all connect, providing a closed loop system. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the development based on consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets and electric), and that the proposed development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. The Planning Commission notes that the Staff Report stated that "Public works has confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any of these services." The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.3 The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that "The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas." The Planning Commission notes that the wetlands, floodplain corridors and large trees were previously addressed in the earlier phases of the subdivision. The Planning Commission notes that the only natural feature that has been identified is the cherry tree that is requested to be removed and is addressed further below. The Planning Commission notes that there are no other natural features to address and that this approval criteria is satisfied. 2.4.4 The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that "The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan." The Planning Commission notes that the surrounding property is fully developed, and that there is no adjacent vacant land. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision will not prevent the adjacent lands from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.5 The fifth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that "There are adequate PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 6 provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project." The Planning Commission notes again that this is the final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and that the HOA governing instruments have obligations for the maintenance of the open space and other common amenities. The Planning Commission notes that all of the open space for the subdivision were dedicated in the previous phases and concludes that the earlier phases had a higher ratio of amenities than this final phase. The Planning Commission finds that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of the open space and common areas and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.6 The sixth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that "The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter." The Planning Commission reiterates that this is the third phase of the subdivision and the density considered has been tracked over the previous phases and includes all area of the previous parent parcels including lands dedicated to Rights of Way. The Planning Commission takes note of the spread sheet that was provided in the staff report and also set out below. This spreadsheet has been updated based on the removal of `Area 7.' The Planning Commission notes that the required minimum density for the remaining subdivision is between 24 and 40 units. The Planning Commission further notes that the present proposal is for 22 units of density, and the Planning Commission further notes that 8 of the proposed MFR units are below 500 sq. ft. they are counted as 0.75 units [SFR: 8, MFR 8+(8*0.75)=14, 8+14=22]. The Planning Commission concludes that Area 7 will need to develop with at least two but not more than eighteen units, and a condition of approval to that effect has been included below. The Planning Commission finds that, with the condition of approval included below ensuring that area seven will meet the required minimum density, that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.7 The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that "The development complies with * Eight of the proposed multi family units are less than 500 square feet so for the purposes of density they only count as 0.75. [8 SFR + ((8 x 0.75) + 8) MFR = 22] PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 7 ' NM -R-1-7.5 NM -MF Acres 4.59 4.16 Dwelling units per acre 3.6 12 Base Density (acres x units per acre) 16.52 49.92 Minimum Density (x 0.75 —1.1) 12.39 —18.18 37.44 — 54.91 Phase 1 11 4 Phase 2 (Cottages) 5 10 Total Dwellings (Phase 1 + 2) 16 14 Remaining minimum density range up to 2.18 23.44 - 40.91 Proposed Phase 3 22* Required minimum range for Area 7 Full developed 1.44-18.91 The Planning Commission notes that the required minimum density for the remaining subdivision is between 24 and 40 units. The Planning Commission further notes that the present proposal is for 22 units of density, and the Planning Commission further notes that 8 of the proposed MFR units are below 500 sq. ft. they are counted as 0.75 units [SFR: 8, MFR 8+(8*0.75)=14, 8+14=22]. The Planning Commission concludes that Area 7 will need to develop with at least two but not more than eighteen units, and a condition of approval to that effect has been included below. The Planning Commission finds that, with the condition of approval included below ensuring that area seven will meet the required minimum density, that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.7 The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that "The development complies with * Eight of the proposed multi family units are less than 500 square feet so for the purposes of density they only count as 0.75. [8 SFR + ((8 x 0.75) + 8) MFR = 22] PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 7 the Street Standards." The Planning Commission notes that the street network and road cross-sections have been planned from the earlier phases of the subdivision. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials include civil drawings and road cross sections for each road and alley meeting the standards provided in the NMNP. The Planning Commission concludes that the street standards are met and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.8 The final criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that "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. " The Performance Standards Option Chapter requires that at least eight percent of the total lot area be provided in common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. The Planning Commission notes that the firsts two phases dedicated nearly 50% of the total project land area to dedicated open space including the floodplain and wetland areas as well as additional open space provided in phase 2 of the project. The Planning Commission conclude that with the previous phases of the subdivision considered and the ample amount of land dedicated that this criterion of approval has been found to be satisfied. 2.4.9 The Planning Commission concludes based on the above and finds that all applicable approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been satisfied. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for development in the NMNP meets all of the supplemental applicable criteria described in AMC 18.3.5.030.0 and detailed below. There are two supplemental approval criteria for the NMNP. The first is to ensure conformity with the "general design requirements" and second that the proposal meets the "specific design requirements" of the NMNP Design Standards. The general design requirements include `density, transportation, building design, and building orientation.' The specific design requirements include all of the standards provided in AMC 18.3.5.100 "Site Development and Design Standards" 2.5.1 The Planning Commission notes that the "general design requirements" include `density, transportation, building design, and building orientation." Included in the discussion of the Outline Plan approval, above, there are findings addressing the required minimum density, and that the road system connecting four road stubs completing the original road design that was approved in conjunction with the first phase of Kestrel Park Subdivision. The Planning Commission notes that each of the proposed buildings provides pedestrian connectivity to the proposed facilities and satisfies the building orientation. The Planning Commission concludes that with the foregoing discussion that the Planning Commission finds that this approval criterion is met. 2.5.2 The Planning Commission notes that the "specific design requirements" include all of the standards provided in AMC 18.3.5.100 "Site Development and Design Standards." The Planning Commission notes that the Site Development and Design Standards includes four primary sections: A.) Housing, B.) Neighborhood Central, C.) Street Types and Design, and D.) Open Space and Neighborhood Focal Point. There are no applicable portions of sections B or D and they are not discussed further. PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 8 AMC 18.3.5.100 A "Housing" The Planning Commission notes that first the first standard is `Architectural Design.' This standard provides a list of architectural features and requires that at least two listed features from the section be included in each home design. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials include extensive drawings of the proposed buildings with each having eaves, covered porch entries, gables and in some cases dormers. The Planning Commission concludes that each proposed building design includes at least two of the required features satisfying the `Architectural Design.' Requirements. The Planning Commission notes that the building orientation standards require that "Dwellings shall be designed with a primary elevation oriented towards a street." The Planning Commission notes that the site plan clearly shows that each proposed building has its primary orientation to the street and finds that the orientation standard is met. The Planning Commission notes that the requirement for garages requires that "Where no alleys are present, garages shall be located a minimum of 15 feet behind the primary fa(ade and a minimum of 20 feet from the sidewalk." The Planning Commission, in evaluating the main site plan, note that the garages are properly setback and that this standard is met. The Planning Commission notes that the standards require that "Grading for new homes and accessory structures shall be minimized and building designs shall respond to the natural grade." The Planning Commission again notes the comprehensive design package for each of the three areas and notes that care has been given in having each of these homes have a daylight basement and are responsive to the existing grade, and that this standard has been met. The Planning Commission notes that the design standards specify that porches shall be incorporated into buildings and be a minimum of six -feet by eight -feet in size. The Planning Commission notes that the detailed site plan of each area includes details on the porch size and in every case meet or exceed this requirement, and that this standard has been met. The Planning Commission notes that the design standards include that driveways for single family homes be limited to nine -feet in width, and that shared driveways be no more than twelve -feet. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes a variance to this standard which is discussed below. The Planning Commission further notes that the Public Works department has a standard that requires that the minimum driveway width be twelve feet, and that the application proposes twelve -foot driveways for the single-family homes and combined 18' -wide for the shared driveways. The Planning Commission concludes that if the variance is approved below then this standard will be satisfied. PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 9 AMC 18.3.5.100 D "Street Types and Design." The Planning Commission notes that this section provides many types of streets for the NMNP area with the primary type being a "neighborhood access street" which is composed of "a 48 foot right-of-way, which provides for a 15 -foot travel surface, seven foot parking bays, and eight foot planting strips and five foot sidewalks on each side." The project also includes alleys which are "a 20 foot wide right-of-way which contains a 12 foot wide improved alley and four foot planted or graveled strips or shoulders." The Planning Commission once again notes that this is the third phase of the Kestrel Subdivision, and the extension of the street system approved at that time. The Planning Commission further notes that the application materials containing detailed civil plans showing that the proposed cross sections meet these design standards and conclude that this standard has been met. 2.5.3 The Planning Commission concludes based on the above and finds that all design standards are met and that therefore this approval criterion has been met. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a variance meets all of the applicable criteria described in AMC 18.5.5.050 and as detailed below. 2.6.1 The Planning Commission notes that the approval criteria for a variance include that 1) variance is necessary special or unique circumstances, 2)The variance is the minimum necessary, 3)The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts, and 4) that the need for the variance is not self-imposed. 2.6.2 The Planning Commission notes that the NMNP master plan was adopted in 1997, and that in the decades since cars have gotten larger. The Planning Commission also notes that there is no evidence that nine -foot driveways have ever been constructed in the NMNP area. The Planning Commission notes that the Public Works department will not authorize a driveway as narrow as the code requires, making a unique circumstance. The Planning Commission notes that the proposal for 12' and 18' shared driveways is the minimum necessary in both cases, because Public Works will not allow anything less than 12', and that the application materials demonstrate that 12' is two narrow for a shared drive. The Planning Commission further notes that based on a single driveway requirement for a nine foot it is perfectly reasonable that a shared driveway for two shared wall garages be allowed to be twice that. The Planning Commission notes that based on the topography and lot sizes it is unreasonable to expect a 12' wide shared drive to functionally serve two 2 -car garages. The Planning Commission further notes that the benefit of the variance allows for long stretches of uninterrupted streetscape that would not otherwise be possible. Finally, The Planning Commission notes that the inability to build the required driveway width based on City of Ashland policy demonstrates that the need for the variance is not self-created. The Planning Commission concludes that based on the above that each of the approval criteria for a variance is satisfied and that the variance should be approved. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval meets all applicable criteria for described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as detailed below: PA -T2-2024-00054 Januaiy 14, 2025 Page 10 2.7.1 The Planning Commission notes that 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." The Planning Commission notes that the property is in the NMNP and is required to be processed in accordance with the Performance standards of AMC 18.3.9. The Planning Commission further notes that the PSO applicability provides "that developments subject to [the PSO] chapter are not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2." The Planning Commission concludes that based on the PSO standards this approval criteria is met. 2.7.2 The Planning Commission notes that the second criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." As mentioned above in 2.5.2, the Planning Commission again notes that the only overlay is the city-wide wildfire overlay and that all proposed construction will meet the adopted wildfire standards. The Planning Commission finds that this criterion of approval is met. 2.7.3 The Planning Commission notes that the third criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards ofpart 18.4, except as provided below." The Planning Commission notes that the application includes detailed responses to each of the Site Development and Design Standards. The Planning Commission notes that the building orientation, garage standards, proposed building materials, preliminary landscape plan and open space standards are all met. The Planning Commission notes that a final landscaping plan with irrigation details will be required and a condition of approval to that effect has been included below. The Planning Commission finds that with the foregoing that this criterion of approval is met. 2.7.4 The Planning Commission notes that 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." The Planning Commission reiterates that this is the third phase of the subdivision and that all city facilities were sized for the expected density during the first phase. The Planning Commission further notes that all city utilities are available and installed in the adjacent rights -of -ways. The Planning Commission notes that Staff have communicated with the Public Works Department and that there are no known capacity issues to any of the utilities. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes details on the electrical plan and that the storm drain will be designed for Low Impact in accordance with the RVSS stormwater quality design manual. The Planning Commission finds that this criterion of approval has been met. 2.7.5 The Planning Commission notes that the last criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that "The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 11 and Design Standards ofpart 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsections below, are found to exist..." The Planning Commission notes that there are no requested exceptions to the above standards and finds that this criterion of approval has been met. 2.7.6 The Planning Commission concludes based on the above and finds that all applicable approval criteria for Site Design Review approval have been satisfied. 2.8 The approval criteria for "Tree that is not a hazard" first require that "The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards." The Planning Commission notes that the only tree proposed for removal is within a building envelope of a proposed building in area 7. The Planning Commission notes that without considering the proposed development it is impossible to address the relevant findings for a non -hazard tree removal. The Planning Commission concludes that the tree removal in area seven must be denied at this time. 2.9 The Planning Commission notes that following proper public notice, a public hearing was held on December 10, 2024 where testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. 2.9.1 The Planning Commission deliberated, and a motion was made approving the Outline Plan as well as Residential Site Design Review. The application was approved subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report along with added conditions of approval presented by staff regarding the removal of consideration of area 7. The amendments were read into the record and are set out below as conditions of approval #3 and #4. 2.10 The Planning Commission notes that the record includes the applicant's submittal, the Staff Report dated December 10, as well as the testimony received at the public hearing, each of these by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. 2.10.1 The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria of approval for Outline Plan and Residential Site Design Review have been met. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a 13 -lot unit Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision Outline, as well as residential site design review for areas 4, 5, and 6 is supported by evidence contained within the whole record and is approved including the conditions of approval below. The conditions of approval are below: 1- That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 12 2- That the applicant apply for final plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040.13 within 18 months of this outline plan approval prior to any development or construction. 3- The conceptual plans for area #7 are not approved here and have been provided for illustrative purposes only. Development of areas #7 shall require Site Design Review approval. The ultimate development of areas 47 shall comply with the minimum density standards of the NMNP. 4- That all proposed public improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, park row landscaping/irrigation and alley be installed, including surrounding area 7, prior to the recording of final plat. 5- That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any additional work in the public right of way. 6- 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. 7- That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and approved by the City of Ashland. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for signature: a. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, drainage, irrigation, mutual access, conservation area easements, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets, and conservation area easements, shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected, and approved. c. 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. d. 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. 8- That the building permit submittals shall include the following: a. Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, conservation area easements, and fire apparatus access easements. PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 13 b. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with the performance Solar Setback Standard as approved in the outline and final plans. c. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage complies with the lot coverage approved in the outline and final plans. d. That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe, an approved public drainage way, or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD -PP -0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. Planning Commission Approval Date PA -T2-2024-00054 January 14, 2025 Page 14 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On January 21, 2025 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T2-2024- 00054, Kestrel Park, 391 E08AD8600. . MichaeCSuCCivan Signature of Employee G:\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\PAs by StreeWKestrel\Kestrel Park Subdivision Phase3\Kestrel Park_PA-T2-2024-00054\Noficing\NOD\Corrected NOD\Kestrel Park_ph3_PA-T2-2024- 00054_NOD_Affidavit of Mailing #2.docx 4/4/2025 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE ABELLE NANCY & MARK ADAMS JONATHAN/MELISSA Alan & Harriet Berman 902 PATTON LN 806 KESTREL PKY 817 Pavilion Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Alden Sklensky 549 Mountain Meadows Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Anita Walker 844 Stone Point ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Arlene & Roger Mueller 826 Boulder Creek Lane ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Barbara Cross 952 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Betsy McLane 819 Boulder Creek Lane ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE BOWMAN LEE ELLSWORTH TRUSTEE 554 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Carol Nosko 824 Pavilion Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Catherine Hickling 833 Pavilion Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Alice Diefenbach 801 North Mountain Avenue ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Ann Dick Wilson 821 Pavilion Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE ASKENAS NELSON REVOCABLE TRUS 246 STREET IVES DR TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Barbara Ricketts 638 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Bill Walker 844 Stony Point ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Brad Bodzin 616 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Carolyn Herb 911 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Cathy Armstrong 837 North Mountain Avenue ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Amelia Franke 980 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Anna Gove 947 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE ASKENAS NELSON REVOCABLE TRUS 911 PATTON LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Bethany Hall 584 Great Oaks Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Bob Pohl 843 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Candis Fugitt 959 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Cassie Conner 735 Meadowlark Way ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Cathy George 832 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE CEC ENGINEERING Charlene Kenny Charlotte & Morgan Silbaugh 132 W MAIN ST STE 103 863 Stony Point 914 Mountain Meadows Circle MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Chris & Anna Lewis Daniel DeRoux Dave Seiden 802 Mountain Meadows Drive 909 Plum Ridge Drive 838 Pavilion Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE David Lane 464 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Dennis Knauert 862 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Donna Taylor 590 Mountain Meadows Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Edwin & Molley Miller 971 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Frances Brandt 634 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Genie Anderson 598 Nandina Street ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Hal Hayes 941 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Ian Couchman 919 Mountain Meadows Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Dena Amtman 905 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Dennis Tetz 638 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Dorothy Brooks 979 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE EGAN LOLA 836 PAVILION PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Francisca Van Lith 862 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Gloria Junkermann 906 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Helen Molz 842 Stony Point ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE J. Marlene Baker 816 Boulder Creek Lane ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Dena Bates 846 Stony Point ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Diana O'Farrell 929 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Edward & Shelley Busby 904 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Fanda Bender 612 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Gail Engblom 636 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Grace Martin 596 Mariposa Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE HOLEMAN DENNIS 822 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Janet Dolan 963 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Janice Trieglaff Jeannine Bertrand Jeremey Dailly 875 Bolder Creek Lane 823 Boulder Creek Lane 628 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Jill Chabers Jim & Linda Robertson Jim Cornelius 654 Fair Oaks Court 962 Golden Aspen Place 822 Boulder Creek Lane ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Jo Ann Grady 909 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE John Sells 608 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Juan Quesada 824 Pavilion Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Kara Keeling 823 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Kevin & Tina Frostad 793 North Mountain Avenue ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Lia Byers & Stephen Brummer 544 Mountain Meadows Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Lotus Gabriel 606 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Mary Ferrari 930 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Joan Tschalaer 902 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Joy Dobson 624 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Judith & Nathanael Sundaram 833 Cobblestone Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Karin Bolling 816 Boulder Creek Lane ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE KINSINGER TRUSTEE 591 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Linda Sussman 910 North Mountain Avenue ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Lucy Strasburg 935 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Mary Hunt 580 Mountain Meadows Dr ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Joel Taylor 590 Mountain Meadows Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Joyce Leighton 626 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Judith Milburn 840 Pavilion Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Kate Thill 921 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE KNOX MARK 670 NEPENTHE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Loretta Barlow 921 Patton lane ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Martin Thommes 564 Great Oaks Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Mary K. King 907 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Maureen Wallace Michael Kotowski Michelle Indianer 838 Pavilion Place 812 Boulder Creek Lane 915 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Miyo Ishihara Nancy Bringhurst Nancy Shubert 628 Fair Oaks Court 785 Creek Stone Way 919 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Nancy Wilkinson 852 Mountain Meadows Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PATRIDGE BARBARA 794 KESTREL PKY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Paula Phillips 785 North Mountain Avenue ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Robert & Laurie Carter 838 Cobblestone Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE RUNKEL DAVID/DONNAN 893 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Sherwood & Germaine Goozee 595 Great Oaks Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Susanne Krieg 900 Skylark Place #316 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE TAYLORED ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTION 1679 JACKSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Olive Johnson 986 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Paul & Nina Winans 802 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PDK PROPERTIES LLC 1679 JACKSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Ross & Ginny Gillanders Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Sally O'Brien 618 Fair Oaks Court ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Shoshanah Dubiner 922 Mountain Meadows Circle ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Suzanne Mitchell 892 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Terry Ansnes 988 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Pamela Newton 975 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Paul Boon 855 Stony Point ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE POLARIS SURVEY 151 CLEAR CREEK DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Roy Sutton 989 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Sarah Tozier 957 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Susan Stoehr 977 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Suzanne Smith-Hammerli 991 Golden Aspen Place ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Thomas Boudrot 857 North Mountain Avenue ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE THOMPSON JEFFREY/MAGGIE TOWER ROBERT D TRUSTEE ET AL VANDERVORT RONALD/CAROL 863 PLUM RIDGE DR 812 PLUM RIDGE DR 583 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Vida Taylor 913 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORRECTED NOTICE Vincent Chabot 919 Plum Ridge Drive ASHLAND, OR 97520 Kestrel Park III NOD Re -Notice 01/21/25 122 WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" �aIIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID u� Illi a�l �V�'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� 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. January 14, 2025 REGULAR MEETING Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Perkinson and Phillips attended the meeting via Zoom. Commissioners Present: Lisa Verner Eric Herron Gregory Perkinson Russell Phillips Susan MacCracken Jain Kerry KenCairn Absent Members: ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Staff Announcements: Staff Present: Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Derek Severson, Planning Manager Carmel Zahran, Assistant City Attorney Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Council Liaison: Vacant Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: • The City's annual town hall meeting was scheduled for January 22, 2025. • The Jackson County Planning Commission will be hearing a request for the Urban Growth Boundary line adjustment related to 375 and 475 East Nevada Street on January 15, 2025. This item previously came before the Commission in 2021, PA -T2-2021-00031. • City Manager Sabrina Cotta will present the updated Commissions and Committees handbook at the January 28, 2025 Study Session. • Appointments for Council Liaisons to Commissions and Committees will be determined by the Mayor and are scheduled for January 21, 2025. • The Commission will review an application for the annexation of 300 Clay Street at its February 11, 2025 meeting. 2. Advisory Committee Liaison Reports -None CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes a. December 10, 2024 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 6 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nirag..fLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i 1m Im V1. WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked that her question on page 3 of the minutes be amended to more accurately reflect her inquiry regarding the density requirements of Area 7. Commissioners Perkinson/Phillips m/s to approve the Consent Agenda with the correction requested by Commissioner MacCracken Jain. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC FORUM - None INFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA -T2-2024-00054, Kestrel Park Phase 111 Chair Verner stated that a non -substantive spelling error in the findings had been pointed out by Commissioner Phillips to staff. This change was made to the draft findings prior to the meeting. Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Phillips m/s to approve the findings with the non -substantive correction noted by Commissioner Phillips. Commissioners KenCairn and Herron recused themselves due to past involvement with the applicant. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0. TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2024-00255 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 110 Terrace St. OWNER: Shirley D Patton Trust APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a formal interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as it applies to how a Peer Respite Home (as defined at ORS 430.626) are regulated. The interpretation requests that the proposed Peer Respite Home in the existing residence at 110 Terrace Street be classified as a similar use to types of Group Living that are permitted in all residential zones, and that such interpretation would provide a reasonable accommodation consistent with the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disability Act. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single -Family; ZONING: RR -.5; MAP: 39 -1E -09 -BC; TAX LOT:8000 Chair Verner noted that staff had received numerous public comments since the meeting packet had been distributed (see attachment #1). ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Page 2 of 6 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� Ex Parte Contact Commissioners MacCracken Jain, KenCairn, Herron, and Verner disclosed site visits. Chair Verner disclosed ex parte contact with a member of the public who informed her that this item was on the agenda. Commissioner MacCracken Jain disclosed three ex parte contacts, but stated that they were unsolicited and did not get into the content of the project, merely that this meeting was scheduled. Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman briefly described a Peer Respite Center and that the interpretation request argued that the proposed Peer Respite Home in the existing residence at 110 Terrace Street should be classified as a similar use to Group Living, that are permitted in all residential zones, and that such interpretation would provide a reasonable accommodation consistent with the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Goldman stated that staff's focus of the interpretation came down to a determination of whether the proposed Peer Respite Center is a group -living situation, as suggested by the applicant, or a Traveler's Accommodation as interpreted by staff per the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC). Questions of Staff - None Applicant Presentation Property owner Kent Patton stated that this facility would serve the community by assisting those who suffer from mental illness or are unable to help themselves. Attorney for the applicant Jennifer Bragar stated that federal law requires a dialogue between the City and the applicant for such a project, but that the City does not have reasonable accommodation processes and has not been in communication with the applicant since the proposal was submitted. Ms. Bragar stated that only one Peer Respite Center had been approved in Jackson County thus far. Ms. Bragar stated that no person seeking respite would be charged rent, unlike short-term tourists, and that residents would return to it when needed, which would designate the facility as a home under the Fair Housing Act. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Herron asked if the owner would live on site. Ms. Bragar responded that they would n ot. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the applicant sought other locations for the facility that ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Page 3 of 6 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� would not require accommodations. Ms. Bragar responded that no RR.5 Zone would permit this facility. Public Comments The following public speakers spoke in favor of the applicant: • Tom Stenson • Victor Rico • Debbie Neisewander • Grace Pettygrove The following speakers spoke in favor of the staff interpretation: • Rob Patridge • Sydnee Dreyer • Ron Rusnak • Karen Grove • Jay Ach • David Allman • David Downey Jr. • James McGinnis Mr. Goldman read a public comment that was submitted into the record by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon just prior to the meeting (see attachment #2). Applicant Rebuttal Applicant Shirley Patton stated that she regretted any distress that the application had caused her former neighbors but that the proposed home would benefit those in need. Ms. Bragar requested that the meeting be continued and that the record be left open to allow additional testimony to be submitted. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. The Public Record was left open to allow written testimony to be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on January 22, 2025. Any party -of -record will then have until 4:30 p.m. on January 30, 2025 to offer a rebuttal to those comments received by January 22. The applicant will have until 4:30 p.m. on February 7, 2025 to offer final arguments or comments. PLANNING ACTION: PA -T1-2024-00254 SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Oaks of Ashland Open Space - Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1600) 554 Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1500) 562-570 Sutton Place (Tax Lot #1800) Page 4 of 6 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� PROPERTY OWNERS: The Oaks of Ashland Homeowners Association (HOA) (Tax Lot #1600) Mukesh & Sheetal Sheoran (554 Sutton Place, Tax Lot #1500) Bruce A. Theisen Trust (562-570 Sutton Place, Tax Lot #1800) APPLICANTS: Vincent Haynes, Michael Thornton and Fred Frantz for The Oaks of Ashland HOA DESCRIPTION: A request for an amendment of The Oaks of Ashland subdivision approval (PA #2000-127) to remove a condition of approval which required that a Public Pedestrian Access Easement (PPAE) be provided to connect Highway 66 to Sutton Place through the subdivision open space and continuing on between the properties at 554 Sutton Place and 562/570 Sutton Place. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single -Family; ZONING: R-1-10; MAP: 39 lE 11 DD; TAX LOTS: 1500,1600 & 1800 Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Herron, KenCairn, and Verner disclosed site visits. Chair Verner disclosed that she was approached by a former Commissioner about this project. Staff presentation Planning Manager Derek Severson briefly described the subject easement, properties, and as -built plans from the Public Works Department. He stated that the planned pedestrian connectivity had not been realized and that existing slopes discouraged the easement's full use. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the requested modifications to Condition #17 of the Oaks of Ashland Subdivision approval, PA -2000-127, with the addition of two conditions suggested by staff. Applicant Presentation Applicant Vincent Haynes, President of the Oaks of Ashland Homeowner's Association (HOA) stated that the removal of the easement would not deprive nearby residents of any key aspects of the HOA, and the its removal would benefit the neighborhood and requested that the application be approved. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 9:06 p.m. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Perkinson/KenCairn m/s to support staff's recommendation and approve the request with the two conditions suggested by staff. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed 6-0. VII. OPEN DISCUSSION Chair Verner asked if any Commissioners wished to put forth a candidate for Vice -Chair. Commissioners Phillips/Herron m/s to elect Commissioner KenCairn as Vice -Chair. Voice Vote: All Page 5 of 6 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� AYES. Motion Passed 6-0. Chair Verner stated that the Mayor had appointed John Maher to occupy the vacant seat on the Commission. VI11. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 6 of 6 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" �aIIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID u� Illi a�l �V�'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� 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, dive 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. December 10, 2024 REGULAR MEETING Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner 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. Chair Verner expressed appreciation to Councilor Hyatt for her service on the City Council and as Liaison to the Planning Commission. She also wished Commissioner Knauer luck with his Council appointment. 1V Commissioners Present: Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Gregory Perkinson Russell Phillips Susan MacCracken Jain Absent Members: Kerry KenCairn Eric Herron ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Staff Announcements: Staff Present: Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Derek Severson, Planning Manager Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement: • He reminded the Commission that the City would be holding its annual appreciation event for the City's Commissions and Advisory Committees on December 16, 2024. 2. Advisory Committee Liaison Reports -None CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes a. October 12, 2024 Regular Meeting Commissioners Knauer/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM - None Page 1 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i V. WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2024-00054 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax lot 8600 of assessor's 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 Chair Verner noted that staff had received several public comments since the meeting packet had been distributed, as well as informational materials distributed by a member of the public prior to the meeting (see attachment #1). Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Phillips and Verner disclosed site visits. Chair Verner disclosed two ex parte contacts with members of the public, who informed her that this item was on the agenda. She responded that she could not discuss this item due to her presence on the Commission. No other ex parte contact was disclosed. Mr. Goldman noted that Commissioners KenCairn and Herron had recused themselves from the proceedings due to their past involvement with the applicant. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Aaron Anderson provided a brief presentation on the proposal, which included a request for Outline Plan Approval for a 13 -lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, as well as Site Design Review, Tree Removal, and a Variance regarding required driveway width of the proposed units (see attachment #2). He stated that this project would be processed as part of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and noted that the applicant had voluntarily removed Area 7 from the proposal, citing the need to further develop the proposal for this area. The removal of Area 7 reduced the number of proposed lots from 15 to 13, and the total number of units from 28 to 16. Mr. Anderson added that staff had included 2 potential conditions of approval to account for the withdrawal of Area 7 from the application: • The conceptual plans for Area #7 are not approved here and have been provided for illustrative purposes only. Development of Areas #7 shall require Site Design Review approval. The ultimate development of Areas #7 shall comply with the minimum density ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Page 2 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� standards of the NMNP. • That all proposed public improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, park row landscaping/ irrigation and alley be installed, including surrounding area 7, prior to the recording of final plat. Questions of Staff Commissioners Knauer and MacCracken Jain asked if a future development phase of Area 7 would have the required density for approval. Mr. Anderson responded that the current proposal meets required density standards and that Area 7 would also meet this standard as part of a future application. Applicant Presentation Mark Knox introduced himself as the representative of the applicant, and a member of the North Mountain neighborhood. Also in attendance was Kyle Taylor, the contractor involved in the project. Mr. Knox emphasized the high density of the proposed neighborhood and the accessibility of the associated alleyways. He related the difficulty in developing in Area 7, which resulted in that area being removed from the current application. Mr. Knox showed how the proposed houses in Areas 5 and 6 were designed to conform to the existing neighborhood, and how the designs were changed based on feedback from neighbors (see attachment #3). He added that the existing 16ft-wide alleyways would be expanded to 20ft wide and how the applicants worked to preserve the nearby riparian areas. Questions of the Applicant - None Public Comments Lee Bowman/Mr. Bowman stated that his comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and with its removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of his time. Robert Tower/Mr. Tower stated that his comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and with its removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of his time. Lola Egan/Ms. Egan stated that her comments were focused on Area 7 of the application, and with its removal from the proposal ceded the remainder of her time. Barbara Patridge/Ms. Patridge requested clarification regarding the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan that was approved in 1997. She stated that the proposed 16ft-wide carports would not be adequate for the residents to navigate, nor would they have the necessary depth to adequately park a vehicle. Mr. Anderson stated that the 1997 approval was by City ordinance and would stay in effect until the neighborhood fully manifests. Page 3 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� Melissa Adams/Ms. Adams expressed concern about the limited fire evacuation routes from the neighborhood, drawing attention to the one egress/ingress point and requested that this be reviewed by the City. Maggie Thompson/Ms. Thompson requested further clarification on why Area 7 was withdrawn from the application and what the future density of that are would be. She also requested clarification on why some of the proposed units would only have vehicular access from alleys. Chair Verner responded that the applicant had stated why Area 7 had been withdrawn. Mr. Anderson stated that the density of Area 7 would depend on the application presented, but that it could be up to 18 -units. He added that this is unlikely as the applicant had originally proposed 12 units before removing the area from the current application. Regarding alley access, Mr. Anderson responded that the code requires that vehicle access come from alleys instead of street frontage when available, and that it is not uncommon for dwellings in infill neighborhoods like the one discussed to have their driveways removed in favor of alley access. Jeff Askenas/Mr. Askenas asked what the timing of the construction would be and if the existing alleys would be accessible during development. Ronald Vandervort/Mr. Vandervort expressed concern about the lack of evacuation routes in the neighborhood, and asked why the Nevada Bridge project had never been completed. Mr. Goldman responded that the bridge was left undeveloped by the Council due to testimony given by nearby residents at the time expressing concern with the bridge's scale, which resulted in grant funds being used to locate a location for a bridge near Tolman Creek Road. He added that the Nevada Bridge is still part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and that a condition of approval signed by members of the community as part of their development had them enter into a Local Improvement District (LID) agreement which required that they pay a proportional share of those improvement costs when the City moves forward with that capital project. He emphasized that concerns over evacuation have been made a priority in the TSP. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Knox stated that the density of Area 7 could be increased if desired, but that this is unlikely due to the layout of the area. He stated that the applicants support the installation of the bridge, and that those wishing to see it completed should petition the Council to add it to the list of future capital improvements. He stated that the layout of the neighborhood is within safety standards, and Mr. Taylor added that the team wants to build a safe neighborhood. Mr. Taylor stated that the development would likely begin in middle of 2025, and that the team would work and communicate with residents to ensure that alley access is not inhibited during construction. Mr. Knox added that development would add more access points through Nandina Street and Mountain Meadows Drive that would filter traffic more evenly throughout the neighborhood. Page 4 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u� Public Comments Robert Tower/Mr. Tower stated that the Mountain meadows subdivision had historically been in favor of the bridge installation. Maggie Thompson/Ms. Thompson stated that Nandina Street is not an ingress/egress point and that those seeking to evacuate still need to take Mountain Meadows Drive or Fair Oaks Avenue to reach the exit from the neighborhood. Chair Verner provided the applicant the opportunity to respond to these public comments that were received after the applicant team had submitted their rebuttal. The applicant team declined. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:06 p.m. Deliberation and Decision Mr. Anderson reminded the Commission that two additional conditions of approval had been proposed by staff to account for the withdrawal of Area 7 from the application. Commissioners MacCracken Jain/Knauer m/s to approve the Kestrel Park Phase 111 application for areas 4, 5, and 6, for a 13 -lot subdivision with conditions as proposed and inclusive of those conditions just presented by staff. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. V1. OPEN DISCUSSION The Commission discussed the relationship between the Commission and the TSP. Mr. Goldman explained that the TSP is a supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan and that the City recently received a grant to update the TSP, which includes funds to hire a consultant to help with its development. He stated that evacuation access is a priority for the new TSP. Commissioner Knauer asked if there is an avenue for the Nevada Bridge to be built before the TSP is completed. Councilor Hyatt responded that it would need to be done as a capital improvement project and that interested parties could petition for it to be included in the next biennial budget. The Commission discussed how an LID could be created to pay for this project, which would require a public input process and grant requests. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:23 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 emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. 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). �%i MINE 11 Ilion 11111 11111111111111117111 Chapter 18.3.5 North Yountain Neighborhood: District I$/ 18.3.5. 100, C.3 Ajkg: ... Alleys allow parking to be located at the property's rear and diminish the negative impact of garages proliferating along street frontages, reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at curb -cuts, and reduce impervious hard surface. In addition, homes, instead of garages, fill the street frontages, providing maximum opportunity for social interaction. The alley cross section is a20 -foot wide right-of-way which contains a 12 -foot wide improved alley and 4 -foot wide planted or graveled strips or shoulders. The existing alleys to the east of Lot 36 and north of Lot 38 are narrow pavements constructed for exactly the purpose of this regulation, namely to provide secondary rear access to homes, mostly accessed by a frontage street. The development proposes using one of these alleys as sole access for 12 units, and using the other for a primary access for 16 units. 18.3.5.100.C.2 Neighborhood Street Access: The,primary type of street traversing the neighborhood is the neighborhood access street. This street has a 48 -foot right-of-way, which provides for a 15 -foot travel surface, seven foot parking buys, and eight foot planting strips and five foot sidewalks on each side. Neither of the two alleys proposed for the development has space in which it can be widened to a Neighborhood Street to provide for the increased use it needs to accommodate. .. 183,5.100.A.2 ,Housinc a primary elevation oriented Orientation: Dwellings shall designed with toward a street. Such elevation shall have a front door framed by a simple porch or portico... clearly visible from the street to promote natural surveillance of the street... The 6 lower, downhill facing studio apartments in Lot 36 do not face into a street or have a street within view. In fact, they have access to an alley only by a one-story external flight of steps. 18.4.2.030.A.1.a Parking,tidiblo,: Parking for residents should be located so that distances to dwellings are minimized. Howey r, avoid ' signs where parking areas are immediately abutting dwelling units because there is little no tri sition from public to private areas. The design of parking for the 12 studio apartment buildings has the 12 pull' -in paring spaces immediately abutting the units. Other conflicts with Ashland Municipal Code are cited in the written testimony submitted three days before the Planning Commission hearing, Richard Kinsinger 591 Nandina Street PLANNING COMMISSION Kestrel Park Phase 3 DEC 10, 2024 �� arrrtaan II �� am, p" �' li rr +nw , �w i� I I sdkFL MtYMP 12LT I f e Y 1 A I I f f I I F North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) AMC 18.3.5 ,A y a � Na,91 � I NN 4"5 F 4 Wb Xwunv miw.yn �, t N�M�t wIV,� � — hF i m WWm WU UpmW �Wi 1 in x Introduction ® Kestrel PIS s request for Outline Plan approval for (13) ®I®t Performance housing,Standards Option (PSO) subdivision. The application includes a request for Site Design Review for 2-9 (16) units of multi family and three shared wall single family The application also includes a variance to driveway width for both single family,and shared driveways. The applicant informed staff on 12/9e ere withdrawing area7 from the present application and instead plan to reserve it for a future phase. 'i ��i p4. W \ T__ mi q T ._ �. yY j yyryry kk L{tI SY.: R / .asxaa, F qa. POLARIS LAND SURV'E'YING Background HUNTAIMINSHIMMIN affm, r. V.... .. ....... ...... ...... .... Y�Y(z . ...... . ... , ? X1"9 fiN J PARK 001MOM1.11 p. "p g.ffc, P (OkfMONARLA "R- ...... . . ....... do, ( ----- - - - - -- - -- POLARIS LANO SURVErINO L 11 d + I ----- LOT relf hr srr�,�;Pmrnxn. 7rr �m;.dd r � I cre ra� , t h 1f \ m � Oyu �s . POLARfS LANG? SURVEYING KESTREL PARK PHASE -11 i A PLANNED CIN7T I)FV7-LOP'h11iNT . ".wa'X v'i r�f�n..bn tJu. ,y`c r'rmaava KDA l ( rxie^.s, LLC '.. — 23Ch1 (.. 7 r. ,xn re„rr«,r re., rre,.re.r rere„n.,w., I Ill i RCIAR S RA C LLC ry r. n�r�t nfvc �� mmmes, n, r r�. r a t t ----- LOT relf hr srr�,�;Pmrnxn. 7rr �m;.dd r � I cre ra� , t h 1f \ m � Oyu �s . POLARfS LANG? SURVEYING KESTREL PARK PHASE -11 i A PLANNED CIN7T I)FV7-LOP'h11iNT . ".wa'X v'i r�f�n..bn tJu. ,y`c r'rmaava KDA l ( rxie^.s, LLC '.. — 23Ch1 (.. 7 r. ,xn re„rr«,r re., rre,.re.r rere„n.,w., I Ill i RCIAR S RA C LLC ry r. n�r�t nfvc �� mmmes, n, r I L-7. KBS=PAM PHASE Iff car rs - — .— ------------ - % 1\y POLARIS LAND SURVIFYINO AVIV ----- AREA 6 7711 DA, ILO'IP LOT 38 LLISA H 20MMI'. HARDSCAPf I ?3D �1 of) ocj%) TO- S :8� SIUDIO 603.6 [ I AI 2NLI, �'ORY ,8 MDI: 1 16-1 0, 1 ' &I AIT, . . ......:....................o. . . .. I BED; 1 56 17 S-UDIO 1A 8 0NH V1ULU ?I - AREA 5 0 1 TANII[AP <RF11, ARLA 6 UNI I C-ouhl I UMTS OVER 500 S.P. UNIT COUNI '�6 I OT 37 JN115 UNDFR ',OG F . . ...... . .......... 10746 AREA 7 .111T I 1 I lllllG it I I HAMT ffVFI S("[ (919,1'�Sl 11111%; l.BASFMFI,I 6! STUDIC I4M 5 F i APARTMENTi �Mk LUlLL I lilbkuuI,� �IiyAK�, ��9H,3 F I AFT Hc 1"110 1UND11 101, 11 I, 6 R IE A 4 d, KF r,19 PPOVIOFF) 1131 I llAlIDA Fl, I I AI LA 9_:__11N11 u3juhl 1......, 2 1 1 LAHUIC-AP ACCLSS ELL ....................... LIJI n r LEGEND� UNI I'; OVI R -J I I TREL PARK Ill ----- ................................... 'Ae plarl L" Of 201 30' 40 g2f 6�U 9v FUILDINI, " S .......................................... .................. . .............................. 70, NM -R -17,5 CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR KESTREL PARK SUBDIVISON PHASE 3 LOCATED IN SECTION 4, T. 39 S., R. I E., W.Ml, TAX LOTS 900, 2000, 8600 CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON ,wwwxvA PROJECT LOCMION PAO V" 'o, _ And LVAS ". NS FA•t! (JF'w fFAFdl� 4`5,911it ?F r uJf w 4 s, `1 V � i 1 5 A~ x ILS LOT 33 's sFr err L:,r FOR hPWLF �, ,rJ •'^ Fk MH V '_ t soo Lm F 32 Fk'. k'rinW,gMF �-- f/°9 MJCA kms„ 0 PA FkWAY i—,IDCI "LL ta,f'L'f' C:S u ° M�111ti) V4tirW I I LOT 34 .. a I d 4 d� ann x Fx wrr7tR wF J KtFAN F 9 FGR1 !`N "rTYpAN F 4'V1 'F'f'f?J k W L te(" ➢ C PA 11➢Y iVss �x 500 / 1w_„o IIII SAAk Vli! y FBF LCDT as LM 7 STREET ILIIGHTS LYLY, F0 t'LC FM SILL. P �a� py OA, AWRLIS. LPWJAMw. STREET LIGFdT12C"r FA F7 a M 7,,0? 0 , 7. R ,•, .....° .... PATTONI IL. Ol 19 8 Lid. Y6.6, 1:.. �.. C 4 101MOMMUMM NAND INA URM WIN la FE Tree Removal a► a► a 7) Tree. Any woody plant having a trunk six caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4 1/2 feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree if greater than six inches DBH. Plants commonly planted as shrubs, including but not limited to English laurel, Leyland cypress, Photinia, Arborvitae, poison oak, English holly, and English ivy are not considered a tree. Trees specifically planted and maintained as a hedge are also not be considered a tree. Variance Public Works standard NMNP standard: 9' for SFR, 12' shared PW minimum 12' width. Issues Raised by public comment Potential additional conditions of approval with the withdrawal of Area 7 The conceptual plans for Area #7 are not approved here and have been provided for illustrative purposes only. Development of Areas #7 shall require Site Design Review approval. The ultimate development of Areas #7 shall comply with the minimum density standards oft NMNP. That all proposed public improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, park row lands caping/irrigation and alley be installed, including surrounding area 7, prior to the recording of final plat. Approval Criteria OUTLINE & FINAL PLAN, EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS, NON -HAZARD TREE REMOVAL included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuilclable 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 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. 42 An application for Site Design Review shallbe approvedifthe proposal meets the criteria msubsections *,B, C,and ubelow. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions ofapproval, consistent with the applicable criteria. ~ A. un of the underlying zone art 18.2), including but not limited to: uilding and yard setbacks, lot area anTdimensions, density and floor area, lot covera building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable Stan ar ~B. Overia Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements ~ c Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complieswith the applicable Site DevelopmentanuoesignStanuanso*part 18,4,except mprovided ovsubsection E'below. ~ o City | h 'comp' ies with the a p ||eswxhtheap |icable standards 18 .4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity 0� City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage paved access to and throughout the property, and ~ E. Exception tothe Site Development and Design Standards.Th authority may approve �|om h Developmentmdoes�n d nbof part 18.4 nthe circumstances meither subsection 1, 2,o,3,below, are found toexist. 1. There isa demonstrable difficulty meetinpthe specific requirementsof the Site Developmentand pe sign Standardsclue toa unique or unusua aspectof an existiril structure or the proposed use of a te, and approval of the exception will not substantially negative y impactadjacent properties; and eproval of the exception is consistentwith the exception requested is the minimum which ������ °�"��a=2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but grantini the exceptionwill result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Deve opme ntanDesign Standards; or3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housingdevelopment, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the statedpurpose of section 18.2.3.090. 43 A. The approval authority through a Type I or T pe 11 procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon fin(Ying 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 topo�raphy, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. * 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. * 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any ne ative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will furt�ler 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 examTile, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line a justment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. 44 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 c .. s and s�ecies diversitW 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 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. 45 Kestrel Park Phase III Lire'//////%%%%%%/O I% �,._,...�..w. �� �"'�...,,,.W �"'r,�;. �F,x � ,cit. �4 ✓%✓ I"^YP4a7-, F / %% I"^AM-R 1 7.:5 01 0.`1215 G.25 Miles Jn ,fid Legeind MNM Y � 4h a / III ray -'L O S Retirmnt Community Are Nim -R 15 NIM -R 17.5 01 0.12',x" G.25 Miles, i ..;, 79 7' 77 75 75 » „c.�,an ��� i N�7. 7 54400 51d1Q 4c54 7A 61 DO OAKS i".Q7'I��T 1:4N5C7Q1`CS 17' 67, 666�,;, 4 W\,76p66 � ...,;,7' q.r} A.� L, � -" 62 SEE MAP' A. "vrk 4rv�w, „6`500 a�a.� 14 , 4 eI aq n A 112 Ac c a �Ek, 2� -� 6p 11 t tiUPP. NOS. rr,n. y � 0k4.18010 ' ub 6 �r r m 716� 4q1 A.k0766K © 12 Am 474 ArAc4472 Ar 7400 ~DINA y ' / ST oa _Goa � s C 868 / 7500 CS 11557176001 39 IE 04AD 16 a CS 23143, ' 7 4 A 34 �, 0523242 , .� �77a6;rr UPP. NO. 5 � 11k 6A0g $6Q3 1 w,o 31 X460 ga 10 71 6a A 2 7906 ? 8�� 8200 �, n 8300 fl a A. 4 1a Nim 5 a5 Ac ?a 4 - Ac w 8s@6 1r b,.q:525:y $'�I� 1�4 .t / � :..—..... 1'»'.�....�511 k�a711 CS 1 1y ra.1a.w 4 A � 'D � 1 DO 4e1nm. O FAINE, A lDOWS DR, 1 diY 1q' 7` dIJ,�.� .... ........... x Yy 11 r° 1 n 1 diY dIJ,�.� .... ........... _ . �. ............L..... vJ U b T A M P O LP R',••T' *ra 1{ m �� II 4 c rrcv i' 7qs; 1 ^ LUr.9! N. alXra �4 l uxrsz �:„. runs r� C --------------------- 4• -------------------- I O RIII v � II III I�,>IdI 111 1,11 y r ,IIs�Is1 Irir,> I� - x III f% n ro n LfYr�C PE 347 __ f IdNT L+.'J LOT Ph?T EM IT& h t� �, � � •,. �� � .ft�C A uhirt i � I LN f £ 24) X26 s.P.. 4 m 230141 o o rod qq � � rVr ul[MIa�P u` y LOi Es yyyy ,� L.,7.4 / ” _�._. ral 37MICreos6 S.F I c,.r wrSr,7Rr, : I TED I Nf3h72 APT.. �C«H 7 BIEQ 1., 6 72 4 L'�T���TPTW PP�7A 11 _0000 4 u '. M1 1 V I l(.'AP 3 EMBLZ rt 1 is a AItAREA „J\ I Pd .€ IBLz .4t:PE r4P,Ph a - U,,Irr c:iu'rnr: �'}� °” l .; a IT �'�aJi a �,�� 3�r ui alp. 4 ��,bUNDER !00 5.1F a � r.�`r r � • � , -ryr w .r—' 0000... ti vwa �fL '- y • 0000 4 , . .� _.w °M T �AREA 7 Lt�� 4 I t � 7-7 .,. LOT 32 (1 I 4 arra rna " 0000 Al,',a-��fp.T QU117:II `s Lv�T'3E r(r x n n f o LEC_f,a�: .A KESTREL PARK III V --- — s f Pro ,,,,,,,,,,,, "EawMElf•J'i 0000 0000 ✓' ti, .rete inn ra-., r ro m ro 'Y IFY 20 317' AD 5DI W TIN W 99 TIM Area 4 Al I EY ------------ I-CY7 3,4 10 7 , A—I'r AREA 5 . ..... ,CRF 0.4a I L f IA N ,FFA I J,117 CCU,rr 6 L�7 37 11,1711 Ll- -Vl LQT . . . . . ........ LOT 32 -.11k,E A 4 ACRE 0 1 ARE. 4 - UNV7 COUN7 LOT 53 KESTREL PARK III -----ff - IT 29 W Aff 50 6U EliIH-LING I I — � --1 ... _7 4 REA 0 E 0V LOT 5EI 203 8 S.F HAM"4 ff 14,250.41 l70.00%, SRIDIJ',Hl, FLOOR l8� 71JOIrD�AO3.6 &.I= B M'T.2M-- 57OPY 151 T 3EDRD0. 0163.1 5.1.1 AFF BED T M n2 7JO110 T 5 a TuTAL PPOVICE0 PI) S 37A,,IlWD, 8 C LIMPAL T HAIDIC�FAcCEMLE 5CIO ',.F. a P,...10 S.IF & - Area 5 LE G&I , "KEST EL PARK III GARwilf Sqt@ Flan N U.,a t 11, "Otf 0,7 1141 ra 70315,2 l MAK>5CAft 14, �:10 .1 1 (M OON `P,Dul,JD FLCO;, 17UIDI�L� (6�" 6 S5 OT 0M1 I MOVOOM (363 4 SF r AF I ME, i. 5 72 1'8a 71,7ALFF,,7NMFZ� �71 j 6 ANDIRCI, a < CIAOACI I HA), Pr) I r AF #n/_U APIA A IMill 00rl Ul ATS NR 3421 ,, F 9 4U ,97& uH.IER, WO eF 6 ............ ......... ...... 'AREA 7 LOT41-PATTON LANE. VIEW Area 6 E r A N N tll t j 4 1 � Y y I rcwea'W"e—.A'I.x'm" t."D� arxa° as /_yry kee4 F51. r �p`S�j 1 Pti y, ---------- — ------- — ------ --- --- ----- -------------------------------- 107 314 I A DT 33 L0744 L<,7 U, AREA 5 e� ,RFA 3 J, IF CCJ,, F 6 N .... ..... 07 E7 L 40 LIT 4 ti LOT 32 sI I AREA.I - UN7 VDIIIIT: I LEG&O "KESTREL PARK III` -T --- 7- F4VEAdflI,,'7 G.Fw3E PORKH E'UH-LING �CPE 097 �FAR7,,,EIM .07 5F' , 20,328.2 S.F HAP EN5r.Fp 14,230.41 70 .0096, .1 IC IFLOZ: F, IA03.6 S.12 p M'7.1hZ- SIORY 03�, SEDR�OOPA k3A3 .1 5.1=.[ AFF T SED T 12 57J011 T 6 TaAlPFIZVIDED II 9 07A1,11WID, 8 C 011PAL T HA"JENJC ,1FACESSIBLE 6 - J 417 COUNT UMM, C^JEg 500 :.F. 5 uJl FT liv•OR I DO 5.1= 6 - ------------ 10' 2' W A& S& North, Elevation - Facing Julian, Ct. RIDGE 25" 11' --joINDLEVEL UILING I; " O'b W, NG 5E , EL -&--M LEVEL O'_C, East Elevation, South Elevation Alleys Critical to Streetscape Success SES Rpt 6104 �` fa ss�wr'f a t ,WO � - w M h nR J 1 500 !'d_ Pl 93 y s J9 C..\ \ �,: c ,alar rI I, aSG eL.i ."'� '....,,:.::.... P ^a� �ryf 71699 Cdgcc '� S199A9J 5193) .,) �. k 6549�`"'_ "}R71 5600 y s ! 2,N d � V -w �-�.� r ❑ e a � C513;rG.2 �.,�' c'lj¢Y. F�i1 • 470 �Y ,39r "5a�1L 0313895 "`'; aa,�a /S6�d s7d6 cs16m a ! ' 1 l Sbocry:,f _ _ 2400U�. p: nd5 iyorx � �r��� Y Cir o�',.�1 23".1.• 2130 630 2401 0516991 2d'Jd i �so� ! ,6 ie 9ao� dip --`•r^�--_� � /` �'dR �` �� �. L ° �. � � 3 �� r a,", -4100 ,` i p �.� �zy,�a � C� �G' •+ �"� ,� �� � .i�1di. �� J� YI g O © r ' a3r5�rn.. ---• A. °d ' _ 5,dd `—• Y A l �420 C 9393 w. CB 6 ,1 .. ' '� Cw SgPa S I�n J "tea -27,000 �saiis3 s3o6:" a9c t50CI II 7 Y aoa ,� i I p 272a 7' ,. Y. Y � o.,p.k d �C,, ,w f L�5d 696'96 .. f 34 = wb273i � r � V' y, Y 1"P, 4>m� and l' I z'1 ..: I Y r P •�y u� 3:26R� d 7 ! Y r7",..�Y �'v.r< ��dwY Y gz0c � r Y � k � � ad r i31W 2 ( f `gp�-,• rf� u'! ��91990 ]E i �" 7360 F � i r2�© W G5 T24Vi1 1' l ! 1y �PPaax. r e11w T�4 ff Ffd^Jc °�r` /ff (... � �,. a5 '11119 000 3,0, D5 Ar H)R 60 I'l 200, "0' ID 57 A r I 'o 0 59, 14( 57, AVENUE 1,22111,- AVENI 'Ell O�N SEE IR� 520 Lno om kr). In SUPIP. .97 Ar MAP 4 00 �OqA A. 79 7 77 76 751 74 O. 7 52 1 6; LEY�D" 400, L- 0 1,0 A. Cr. 1 C, A� 05 4'. 61 oo �z CS 171967 7 5 4500 5010 0 DOA 0 PAr 4tOO 49010SiErCi 4800 114 6,900 I J 1, 2, A� -304A. CV Ac. 6700 3 0 OFJ A 470Cr....... ......... ......... ......... ......... 86010 0 05 A, A 7300 227 Ac 012 A, 2' /4 7400 q, A,: F 5 < NANDL rNA ST 7soo 6' < 7600 CAll AC 5 7 CS 23143 o C, A, 30 CS 23242 7700 a i i A 1Q 04A, 4 T 31 , A, 63 C�5 A 0 2 1�6 Table' t: ICr"'ty of Ashland Street Desian Standards WITN1'dN CURBTO-CURE 4PEA MOTOR MENAM BIKE PARK T'VPB OF STREET ADT R.O.IM": C. -TO- CVR8 PARK.- 31DE- '.. WDTFf C'LIR5', NEMCLE AdN'Dr42R' LANES dN9 ROMP WALKS PA.VEM EFN'F TRAWEL. CENTER WDTN LANE'S TURN LANE dl@ RVI pn (1'P dd0, b.M nd9V 0 94.. .1'— adder aidb. &d" 2-Lane BRUPevanl 8r" 91"-87" 54'" 17'amgmW .race• Nn8"' 8" 5•-M.'r 8"-a R'9 [d e 0 trays 9-Lane Bdi4Pgmm 34041@ 73"-"' 48'" 79' U' 2ac8" fn 5'. 8" 5'-8'r 6,16"each drays. 5-Lane BRUPevad ADT '... AU"' "-127" 88" 1ti' T2' 2ac8" fn S'9" g'-5'r 8"-10'1 earn trays 2-Lane Amue 3,00 58"-88" 82=38" dP'-70.5' 2a['8" fn 8'. a" 5"-�M.'r ffied8:'e xd —b trays 8'-Lane Amue ADT 79..5° 48.5=44.5" ]P'-70.5' 115' 2aC 8'" M8'. M'• S•-8.'r ffi-944'° ..... .................. P7. S. ........ ............ ......... .......... Race ...... tray& ..".. .... ..... ...... • MVnJeld� pd CCJN , J, 57uS Re6199n NA NA'° Nd. Pa M.q `..Dm '... 48"31" 22" - na.W Pa✓Nfnq 0- &d. ADT .50'-58" 25=27' W'-id" 8 7-8 5-8 dBMe P,mk g B.0, SVd5.5 '., 57'-83" 92'-34' W'-7tl" —7, lane& R•, 7-8' 51-8" wva4q'nddmdda C6JNWCudr; C6WIbd18 eY67aV P—fPef Puw0y One SYda 55'-55" 28" 1@' PnaBneB' 8„ 5_8„r 8"-bM.n PadafPeNPa4M',IN.g 84991 89-23” 88" 74v PAO B' 8•. 5'-8" 8'-16'n Sfdlaa Pane& 'N'gdna@ Pm" 0",S'm 8F" dne 7'F" WNq. nw Pa✓d gB.S, SY'-Bd" 5d" 1@' lutid 7T' 8. 5-8•r 8"-bM.n SO" Mn" m.f519da4nddd S—L Pe..es NA RuVd.—d 01.1 P,mk g OnW wdW i SAP '... 4T'-Sd" 22'" 15"4cl euVety 9&14 8" 7's' 5'-8" PaAng BaM SVd"x7 ADT SP'-SF" 2529' T'-94" Y44'd T' T}u+euing Pane& e" F=8" S'-8' AddWy MA. 18'" d97. 2'a�tMp� NA NA NA YIdnW raPdwW FldnW ndnW u1YTdAaN+ad' 4. bdM sld'Ws M.N-w. Pa91 R"-bw'p m NA NA 1P"-78" P 00%2'-4' NA NA naFlW ..I. -Wnone Sop. do dd94 Va. A/ley The alley is a semi-public neighborhood space that provides access via the rear of the property. The use of alleys eliminates the need for front yard driveways and provides the opportunity for a more positive front yard street scape, allows the street located adjacent to the front of propel -ties to be designed using a narrow width with limited on -street parking, and creates the opportunity for the use of nal -rower lots to increase residential densities. Alleys are appropriate in all residential areas and in some c5MEM i a I ............. a r e a s.......... fo—FUU—smess RIMe................... X1 I e .......... y s ..............p r 6i .......... a e a ccess and Street Function: Provide rear yard access and delivery to individual residential and commercial properties, .and an alternative utility placement area. Connectivity: Connects to all types of streets. Average Daily Not applicable 'Traffic: Managed Speed: Not applicable:, motor vehicle travel speeds should be below 10 mph Right -of -Way 16' Width: Street Standards IHandbook City ©f AsMand Pavement 12' with 2' graveled or planted strips on side Wild,th: Motor Vehicle Not applicable Travel Lanes: Bike (Lanes: Not applicable, bicyclists can easily negotiate these to use areas Parking- No parking within the right of way Curb and Gutter No curb. use inverse crown Parkrow: Not applicable Sidewalks: Not applicable, pedestrians can easily negotiate these low use areas Alley August 2008 IPage 34 C. 3. Alleys. One of the most importantfeatures, making up the neighborhood iis the alley. Alleys allllow parkiing to be located at the property's, rear and diiii-i the negative iiimipact of gairages, proliferating along street frontages, reduces pedestrian and'vehiicle conflicts at curb -cuts, and reduces impervious hard surface. In additiion, homes, iinsteadl of garages, fiEl the street frontages, providiing maximum oppoirtuinity for social inteiractiion. The alley cross sectiion is a 20 -foot wide right-of-way which coinitains a 12 -foot wide improved aEley and fouir-foot Ipllanted or graveled strips or shouldeirs. See Fiigure '13 .5 100. C-3. See ......................................................... Aso, setback requiirements, far garages and accessary structure in section 18.3.5r. '60 and s e ct i o in, 1,x;.3.5.100 A, 4. structure fen cc env setback) 4' V 12' V setback clearance travel clearance line ALLEY 20 ROW Figure 18.3.5.100.C.3. Alley other Area 7 �l • P REA 5 i 0. SE LO7 b L'J7 t� ----------------------------------- . T T air ACRE D.47 3; A,kdALhT 1 Id S O LD7 5Y7E o 328 IN 4 �, 19rii " PN RI p HroRDOCAPE T4 230.41 (7002%) I^ ul alT uavi9 RC WY{O ILC<N 4IS1 TUDIk 501. Fa F"11,10 U'70FY 6j 7 B CRdq,aA r!zhE l 4AIFT. 'Ulan(i. 7 EEC 7 yE 12 7U 7 3 E a �1,NLAF.r 5 c mPP Cr' 7 Hwllf CAP&CCEMOLE N M $ 5 YAREAF UN7 rCUN7 AREA S-U117GOUIl76pUNIT (NER DO 3.1 'a i a+IDERB.. 'a - 1 � LOL+7J6 I AREA f,9PAlTfh if i Gtl:giIPR'�P xM1 'NIM PT HAP[K3CAF0^56376.5. I -_ 3 F. j6}.61'K� LCR '83 aro I'MMl fR1-01 IL 5I 7U'G f(400 a 1F.N AW.I,,C,rT. LIVFt A ✓,..w^ �.�.,�.'-�"'"����r 7� •`q•�', �.�rN1j13kGP.CNCNAArY4E j. rm JE'�3 P.CNriaaAPi Lnr3,rid LCGH,r, AfPAA I! 0 GAFACE I GPGH 13UILCNII!',L- . YXPR..E A0.14 k` .. *I AC.AREA 4-'J,,I[T GCIUMT: 2 KESTR L PARK III 1 BED UMdOE9 700 P.}:7x5 = N { u aVT u TUCMICM I =. 9 .. ITI:NTALPRIN rDEC1r131 9 STA1,10ARLI d C0,11PA"S P,A, ID CAF ACCESSIBLE f f I LOT 33 I j J�dF-A U,,"7 C:OLR,r, i f LG7341/ UIW7 SAEF,500'ax. C UNdl7 Ulf dJEA 100 L F K N ?) 3 N sit. P4 W. % 1}^� 1'Va -' d6R 5 dLY ]TY 8]" W@'7f7p' INVINM PAT70N LANE MEW NCMkIc: Ll.. WrmeB.lir dr4hth.—m subt— PA70N LANE MEW NANDINA 7REETWEW ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission — December 10, 2024 PLANNING ACTION: OWNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONE DESIGNATION: PA -T2-2024-00054 CMK Development LLC Taylored Elements 39 -1E -04 -AD Tax Lot 8600, 4700, 7800, & 4900 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 18.3.9 Performance Standards Overlay 18.5.1 General Review Procedures APPLICATION DATE: APPLICATION COMPLETE: PUBLIC NOTICE: MEETING DATE: 120 -DAY DEADLINE: 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.6.1 Definitions November 1, 2024 November 15, 2024 November 19, 2024 December 10, 2024 March 1, 2025 PROPOSAL: 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 as well as a request to remove a single non -hazard tree that is within a proposed building envelope. L Introduction The property was created as lot -31 of Kestrel Park Phase 11 and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. The property is zoned "North Mountain -Multi Family" (NM - MF) and is regulated 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 AMC requires that all applications involving the creation of three or more lots in the NMNP to be processed in accordance with AMC 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; first Outline 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 1 of 16 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 five lots 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 NMNP Area is approximately 53 acres and is located between Interstate -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 42800) to complete the implementation of the NMNP. 2) Background MM This is the 3rd Phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision which began in 2018. The subject property is Lot 31 of Phase 2 and was 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 plat was recorded as CS23143 in September of 2020. The application also included Planning Action: PA -T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report (aha) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 2 of 16 amendm the adop -nts to the NMNP to modify the street network and address the `Civic Space' shown on red map. A portion of the phase 1 plat is shown below. � � r p '- � 7 � n � In h ai Y4 -sal * 'V ,,,,✓'" k Hey ih'J',FffAW! DIMfi,wadKJ 1 COXYMONARR ,. 7r. nrsravt t. P,�dea LOT k � GOAINIONAIUA - r .,u t 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. 11111 Kh,-S'T'N11., PARK, PHASE 11' A PIJY%IfJF dY 1-1"fSf V11:lJf %91�N1' rr� rc ................... xwunwwrr-�..irvur �.3a41 POLAR/$ LAND SURVEYING Planning Action: PA -T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report (aha) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 3 of 16 F 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. 11111 Kh,-S'T'N11., PARK, PHASE 11' A PIJY%IfJF dY 1-1"fSf V11:lJf %91�N1' rr� rc ................... xwunwwrr-�..irvur �.3a41 POLAR/$ LAND SURVEYING Planning Action: PA -T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report (aha) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 3 of 16 3) Site Description The subject property is Tax lot 48600 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). IL 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 431 of Phase 2, now the numbers for the 15 lots in Phase 3 are 432 through 446. 7,L PRW MRWARYPUDMAP RESTRELPARK,. PHASE PTT sa�m�,mraa�.u,ar�s�-�mra caar-oar�crmr:mtier, oxtixw w,e 7l!'roralSlnww,na�bu�LLC Planning Action: PA -T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report (aha) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 4 of 16 MWERE [mF � �\ r,.xnt rvrnrnni ern G.� ate Planning Action: PA -T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report (aha) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 4 of 16 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 and large 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 applicable standards. 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 criterion is met. 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 5 of 16 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 dedicated as 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 6 of 16 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 ZONE NM -R-1-7.5 NM -MF Acres 4.59 4.16 Dwelling units per acre 3.6 12 Base Density acres x units per acre 16.52 49.92 minimum density (x 0.75 —1.1) 12.39 — 18.18 37.44 — 54.91 Phase 1 11 4 Phase 2 (Cottages) 5 10 Total Dwellings (Phase 1 + 2) 16 14 Remaining Density from allowed max 2.18 40.91 Proposed Phase 3 38 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 mayor 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 7 of 16 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 believe that 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 18.5.2.020.13 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 is effectively 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 8 of 16 18.3.5.100. When printed these standards occupy 30 pages, so we do not address each item individually. That said the 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 ofpart 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 ofpart 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 9 of 16 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 andfrom 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 ofgarages proliferating along street frontages, reduces pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at curb -cuts, and reduces impervious hard surface. In addition, homes, instead ofgarages, 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 10 of 16 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 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 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 18.3.5.030.0 provides the approval criteria and standards for development in the NMNP. Planning Action: PA -T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report (aha) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 11 of 16 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 12 of 16 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 13 of 16 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 land division 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. If the 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 all new 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 parry 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 14 of 16 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 15 of 16 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. 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) Owner: CMK Development LLC Page 16 of 16 Michael Sullivan From: Michael Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 10:28 AM To: Michael Sullivan Subject: Kestrel Park P3 - Area 7 Withdrawal From: Mark Knox < k.inox.. ..!n ii„ind..ir�.e':�:> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 10:16 AM aairoi"n.air"ndeu�scairn aslrnllairnd.cau.us> To: Aaron Anderson <.................................................................................................................................................................................................. Cc: 'Kyle Taylor' <Iky,Il & tidy,llgii-edelleirneints.coirn> Subject: Kestrel Park P3 - Area 7 Withdrawal [EXTERNAL SENDER] Aaron, Based on comments received from the neighboring property owners of the proposed Kestrel Park, Phase III application, the applicants have decided to withdraw Area 7 from the application, including all associated entitlement requests such as the proposed property lines, tree removal and site review proposal. The applicants are still desiring to move forward with the remaining areas, Area 4, 5 and 6, but will eventually re -apply for entitlements for Area 7 in the future. The general reasoning of the withdrawal is not based upon any criteria or standard based conflict, but simply the applicant's desire to re-evaluate the site plan with the goal of improving the layout and design. Thank you. Mark Knox, Project Planner (0, Virus-free.www avast dap From: MARK ABELLE To: nlannino Cc: Chuck Schweizer; David Runkel; Joann Gradv Subject: Kestrel Hillside Development Date: Friday, December 06, 2024 5:04:20 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Planning Commission, I wish to share my thoughts with you concerning the Kestrel Hillside Development. But before I do, I want to dispel the very dismissive label that has been applied to all who have protested this development: NIMBY—not in my back yard. This is not the case. All who have purchased residences in the area surrounding the Kestrel property knew that someday the property would be developed. It is the density and aspects of the design that are concerning. Background: The plans for the North Mountain Neighborhood were drawn up decades ago. I believe the lead planner on this project was Mark Knox. The plan essentially called for high density, in keeping with the goals of infill. Back in the day, it all looked good.This property was assigned a density of 24-44 units. The developer has applied for 48 units. This falls within the approved amount due to the value applied to units under 500 square feet. These units are given a value of 3/4 unit. Because there are enough of these units, the developer is able to squeeze in a few more. Fire safety: In today's real world, this density is now a serious safety issue.The very worrisome annual fire danger we all face is an issue we cannot avoid. When high density is coupled with the practice of street narrowing, you have the recipe for catastrophy. Dropping high density developments into neighborhoods with streets that do not have the capacity to properly evacuate the residents in a timely fashion, is not only unconscionable but borders on the criminal. I find it beyond belief that the fire department continues to sign off on the narrow streets. Evacuation: According to the Evacuation study, all of Ashland will be congested within 30 minutes. It will take 4.5 hours to fully evacuate the City. The North Mountain Neighborhood will congest within 15 minutes. If faced with another fast moving Alameda -type fire, this neighborhood would quickly become a very crispy one. Do you remember Paradise, California? I understand that the state would be very pleased for Ashland to embrace higher density neighborhoods. Then build these neighborhoods in areas where the infrastructure can be built to accommodate the evacuation safety of the citizens. The Croman Mill site comes to mind. Design: North mountain Neighborhood Section 18.3.5.030 C Supplemental Approval Criteria 1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general standard design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including transportation, density, building design, and building orientation. This development is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Putting aside the abysmal size of the proposed units, there is a proposed structure for the SE corner of the property bordering Nandina. This calls for 6 units up and 6 units down with a large parking lot fronting an ally. In this neighborhood, there are structures with 2 attached residences and then a gap between this structure and another residence. The proposed structure has an appearance of a motel. It is visually depressing and inappropriate for this area. Access and egress for most of the residences in this development are dependent on the ally way system. The plan calls for parking lots accessed via the allies. These allies are essentially one way and not designed for even moderate traffic flows. Further, you cannot get emergency, service or moving vehicles down these allies due to the 90 degree turns. If the corners were radiuses to 45 degrees, it would ameliorate the problem but not cure it. Public transportation is nonexistent for this area so it must be assume that 90-98% of the residents will have vehicles.To think that most people will be walking or biking is simply not valid, especially for an area comprised of mostly of older citizens. KDA were the original designers of this plan. Their goal was to maximize the density in order to squeeze every last ounce of profit from this development without regard to their neighbors. The new developer is simply following the pre -approved plan. Because Mark Knox has been the consultant for this plan, no box has been left unchecked. I do not oppose the development. I am asking for a reduction in the density to 30-35 units. I am also requesting the city reconsider the width of the streets, knowing full well the fire danger we face. A slight redesign of the 6 unit structure is also requested. Thank you very much for you time. Sincerely, Nancy and Mark Abelle 902 Patton Lane From: Dennis Holeman To: Aaron Anderson Cc: Rich Kinsinaer; David Runkel;"Jeff Thomason"; "Cathv Georoe"; "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 the hearing on December 10th 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) From: REK To: Aaron Anderson Cc: Dennis Holeman; David Runkel; Jeff Thomason; Lee Bowman; Robert Tower; Cathy Georoe 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 Richard Kinsinger Dennis Holeman Lee Bowman Michael Sullivan From: REK <rek@kinsinger.us> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2024 12:53 PM To: planning Cc: Dennis Holeman; David Runkel; Lee Bowman Subject: Written testimony re Kestrel III development Attachments: Kestrel testimony final.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL SENDER] Aaron Anderson, Attached is written testimony on the Taylored Elements application for developing Kestrel Park III. Please confirm by reply or phone to 541-816-5171 that you've received it and do not need a paper copy. Of course, I can bring copy to you if needed. I expect there will be three or four of the signers who will testify orally at the Planning Commission meeting Tuesday evening. We can identify them for you on Tuesday if that would help with the sign in for oral testimony. We will keep our comments succinct and to the point of this written testimony. I understand from Dennis Holeman that I can send you a pdf with a few images you could display or give the Commissioners so that we may reference them. That would speed our testimony. Two, possibly three, maps we want to refer to are in the pdf application package. Should I attempt to extract them from the application, or is there a better way to deal with that situation? I await your guidance on that question, but I'll send the pdf to you tomorrow. Thanks, Richard Kinsinger Testimony on Kestrel Park Phase 111 Site Development The first two phases of the Kestrel Park development built in conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood District zoning have added greatly to our community. They've taken advantage of the relatively flat land along Bear Creek and Kestrel Parkway and have given the new residents generous yards and green common space. That has left to the proposed Phase III of the Kestrel Park development the remaining steep and barren hillside portion and the constraint of building very high-density housing to meet the City's desired overall density for the whole Kestrel development. Taylored Elements Construction has taken on this remaining Phase III, proposing a design with high density so that the entire Kestrel Park meets density regulations. The proposed Kestrel Phase III design follows the pattern of Kestrel Phases I and II in siting larger units, some as large as 1,700 sq.ft., lower on the hill (Areas 4, 5, and the lower part of Area 7)). To meet density requirements this forces units at the top of the hill (Areas 6 and 7) to be as small as 400 sq.ft. Particularly constrained is Lot 36 which has 12 studio rental apartments (6 over 6) in a 10,026 sq.ft. footprint. As measured by average area per housing unit, the density of Lots 36 through 38 at the top of the development is 2-1/2 times greater than the rest of the Kestrel III homes. Access for 12 studio apartment units through Mariposa Court alley Mariposa Court is an Alley that was constructed during the building of the Plum Ridge Subdivision of Mountain Meadows in 2001. In compliance with Ashland Municipal Code, North Mountain Neighborhood District (AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3) the designed purpose of the Mariposa Court/alley was to serve as garage and garbage truck access for five Mountain Meadows homes at 863, 843 and 823 Plum Ridge Drive and 539 and 549 Mountain Meadows Drive. All other vehicular access to those homes (emergency vehicles, visitors, mail and package deliveries, moving vans, etc.) use their frontages on Plum Ridge and Mountain Meadows Drives. The paved alley is 12 feet wide as specified in the code. This is only slightly wider than a single lane so cars must queue and Recology garbage and recycling trucks have a difficult time navigating the alley as it is. There is room to widen the paved north -south surface on the downhill or west side. The east -west stub connecting the south end to Plum Ridge Drive has residential properties on either side, thus no room for widening. We disagree with the Finding of Fact 3.g, that states the development complies with Ashland street standards. If the planned building at the top of Area 7 is built and inhabited, all vehicular access to those 12 apartments would be through Mariposa Court/alley. This is in violation of AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 which describes an Alley as servicing the rear of a property to diminish use of the main access at property frontage. For the new units the alley must serve their personal car parking, visitor parking, emergency vehicle access and parking during the emergency, garbage and recycling trucks, mail and package delivery, and parking for any other services to those homes, e.g., utility service or equipment installation and repair. AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 specifies the standard paved width for an Alley as 12 feet with 4 - foot clearances on either side. In the plan there is a 16 -foot width reserved for the Alley which is thus 4 feet less than code. The short east -west stub off Plum Ridge Drive cannot be widened beyond its 12 -foot current width. The North Mountain Neighborhood District code takes precedence over Ashland Street Standards, but the same problems requiring only secondary access and limits on width exist with respect to that code. There is no possibility of converting Mariposa Court into a Neighborhood Street per AMC 18.3.5.100.C.2 which requires a 48 -foot right-of-way including sidewalks and planter strips. Parking spaces provided for 12 studio apartment units We contend that the Planning Commission cannot make the findings required by AMC 18.3.9.040 A.3 or AMC 18.5.2.050. The 12 -unit apartment building is squeezed into a too small parcel and as such does not comply with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of AMC 18.4 as follows: (1) All parking is pull -in spaces all sized for compact cars but it is not reasonable to expect all occupants to have compact cars. Longer vehicles would stick out into the alley. (2) AMC 18.4.2.030 Residential Development Sec. A 1.a. Parking Layout.... "However, avoid designs where the parking areas are immediately abutting dwelling units..." The design shows parking immediately abutting the wall of the building. (3) The accessible parking space does not meet the criteria for access to the entrance to the building. Will the unit adjacent to the accessible parking space be reserved for a disabled person? (4) Since the plans do not include a section of the alley with the adjacent buildings shown it's difficult to determine if the minimum dimensions required by AMC 18.4.3.080 are achieved. (5) The designed parking does not meet the landscaping and screening requirements of AMC 18.4.4.030. (6) The 12 -unit apartment building does not comply with the common and private open space requirements in AMC 18.4.4.070. Appropriateness of the proposed 12 studio apartment units We contend that the lower units of the 12 -apartment building fail to meet AMC 18.3.5.100.A.2. The front or primary elevation of these units faces west, away from any street and in fact into the rear of two larger single-family homes below them. These units will have access to vehicles only via an external flight of stairs. All goods from furniture to groceries to front door deliveries will have to be carried via those stairs. More importantly, ambulance or other emergency transport must use those stairs. The 12 -studio apartment building at the top of Area 7 would be closely surrounded by homes of a completely different nature. The 12 proposed studios apartments are sized at approximately 500 sq.ft. To the east are three single family homes with greater than 1,500 sq.ft. To the south are two single family homes with greater than 1,500 sq.ft. To the west will be, according to the submitted plan, two single family homes with greater than 1,500 sq.ft. While higher density, smaller homes can be designed to blend in with larger single-family homes, the disparity of design in this case is enormous. Access to Area 6 homes through the unnamed east -west Alley We again disagree with the Finding of Fact 3.g, that states the development complies with Ashland street standards. The 12 -foot wide one -lane alley off Plum Ridge Drive which would be extended west beyond Patton Lane would serve as one of two points of access to 16 additional units. The alley does not meet AMC 18.3.5.100.C.2 standard width provisions in that there is no 4 -foot wide clearance space on either side. There is no room for widening or for sidewalks. The alley currently serves as access to three garages with vehicles backing out onto the alley. In addition, it is used by some vehicles coming from an unnamed alley parallel to Plum Ridge Drive. The Julian Court alley was not designed to handle a large number of vehicles, oversize trash removal or delivery trucks, or fire and rescue vehicles. At present, Recology and large delivery trucks cut into Lot 38 property to make the turn at the end of the alley. Appropriateness of Proposed Homes in Lots 37 and 38 to their Surroundings The proposed units on Lots 37 and 38 do not meet the common and private open space requirements in AMC 18.4.4.070. The plan would cover two-thirds of Lots 37 and 38 with structures or pavement. This does not, as the petitioners claim, reduce the impact on the natural environment, but rather increases runoff down the steep slope. The proposed four two-story buildings west of the houses on Plum Ridge Drive and south of the alley marked as Julian Court would be the tallest structures on the west end of the entire Kestrel development area. With the exception of one house at Nadina Street and Plum Ridge Drive in the Mountain Meadows development, other two-story structures are spaced down the slope and don't interfere with existing views of other houses which are primarily owner occupied. The plan would cover two-thirds of Lots 37 and 38 with structures or pavement. Other considerations Although it is not the Planning Commissions purview to look at specific traffic problems with a proposed development, section D of the AMC 18.5.2.050 Site Design Review Approval Criteria does state in part that adequate paved access to and through the property is to be provided. The new development will add 38 homes to the North Mountain Neighborhood District which now has approximately 440 independent living homes plus 91 assisted living and memory care apartments in Skylark Senior Living. With the addition of Kestrel Phase III the population of the North Mountain Neighborhood District can be estimated at over 600 people, more than 5 percent of the city of Ashland. Yet the North Mountain community has only a single paved access to the city, North Mountain Avenue with its narrow bridge over Bear Creek. A bridge over Bear Creek at Nevada Street is in the 2012 Ashland Transportation System Plan, but there is no current plan for its construction. Public transport into the community now must retrace its route out of the community. Whether this is a factor or not, the community has no regular public transportation. We contend there is not adequate transportation to the property as the Finding of Fact on AMC 18.5.2.050.D states. It is also not the purview of the Commission to consider provisions for evacuation of the development should that be needed in an emergency. This provision is not a part of the Ashland Municipal Code, but the recent Almeda fire has brought great attention to the need for providing evacuation routes. The North Mountain community has only two evacuation routes, along North Mountain Ave south to the city or north across the 1-5 overpass out of the city. An emergency onramp to 1-5 south has been built, but there has been no clear information on when and how it can be used. Adding 38 units to an area with over 440 homes adds significantly to our evacuation concerns. Dennis Holeman 822 Plum Ridge Drive Dave Runkel 893 Plum Ridge Drive Richard Kinsinger 591 Nandina Street Bobbie Kinsinger 591 Nandina Street Lee Bowman 554 Mountain Meadows Drive Roberta Bowman 554 Mountain Meadows Drive Cathy George 832 Plum Ridge Drive Jeffrey Thompson 863 Plum Ridge Drive Maggie Thompson 863 Plum Ridge Drive Ron Vandervort 583 Nandina Street Carol Vandervort 583 Nandina Street Bob Pohl 843 Plum Ridge Drive Alden Sklensky 549 Mountain Meadows Drive Lia Byers 544 Mountain Meadows Drive Stephen Brummer 544 Mountain Meadows Drive Suzanne Mitchell 892 Plum Ridge Drive Paul Winans 802 Plum Ridge Drive Nina Winans 802 Plum Ridge Drive Robert Tower 812 Plum Ridge Drive Kevin Frostad 793 North Mountain Avenue Tina Frostad 793 North Mountain Avenue Donna Taylor 590 Mountain Meadows Drive Joe[ Taylor 590 Mountain Meadows Drive Dennis Knauert 862 Plum Ridge Drive Francisca Van Lith 862 Plum Ridge Drive Kara Keeling 823 Plum Ridge Drive Genie Anderson 598 Nandina Street Bethany Hall 584 Great Oaks Drive Grace Martin 596 Mariposa Court Chris Lewis 802 Mountain Meadows Drive Anna Lewis 802 Mountain Meadows Drive Cathy Armstrong 837 North Mountain Avenue Paula Phillips 785 North Mountain Avenue Nancy Wilkinson 852 Mountain Meadows Drive Thomas Boudrot 857 North Mountain Avenue Alice Diefenbach 801 North Mountain Avenue Sherwood Goozee 595 Great Oaks Drive Germaine Goozee 595 Great Oaks Drive David Lane 464 Golden Aspen Place Catherine Hickling 833 Pavilion Place Janet Dolan 963 Golden Aspen Place Jim Robertson 962 Golden Aspen Place Linda Robertson 962 Golden Aspen Place Robert Carter 838 Cobblestone Court Laurie Carter 838 Cobblestone Court Candis Fugitt 959 Golden Aspen Place Susan Stoehr 977 Golden Aspen Place Mary K. King 907 Mountain Meadows Circle Maureen Wallace 838 Pavilion Place Edwin Miller 971 Golden Aspen Place Motley Tinsley 971 Golden Aspen Place Janice Trieglaff 875 Bolder Creek Lane Michelle Indianer 915 Mountain Meadows Circle Joan Tschalaer 902 Mountain Meadows Circle Roy Sutton 989 Golden Aspen Place Dena Amtman 905 Mountain Meadows Circle Dorothy Brooks 979 Golden Aspen Place Dena Bates 846 Stony Point Anna Gove 947 Mountain Meadows Circle Martin Thommes 564 Great Oaks Drive Hal Hayes 941 Mountain Meadows Circle Nancy Bringhurst 785 Creek Stone Way Diana O'Farrell 929 Mountain Meadows Circle Terry Ansnes 988 Golden Aspen Place Michael Kotowski 812 Boulder Creek Lane Edward Busby 904 Mountain Meadows Circle Shelley Busby 904 Mountain Meadows Circle Susanne Krieg 900 Skylark Place #316 Betsy McLane 819 Boulder Creek Lane Olive Johnson 986 Golden Aspen Place Barbara Cross 952 Golden Aspen Place Arlene Mueller 826 Boulder Creek Lane Roger Mueller 826 Boulder Creek Lane Ann Dick Wilson 821 Pavilion Place J. Marlene Baker 816 Boulder Creek Lane Karin Bolling 816 Boulder Creek Lane Helen Molz 842 Stony Point Charlotte Silbaugh 914 Mountain Meadows Circle Morgan Silbaugh 914 Mountain Meadows Circle Charlene Kenny 863 Stony Point Jeannine Bertrand 823 Boulder Creek Lane Ian Couchman 919 Mountain Meadows Drive Judith Sundaram 833 Cobblestone Court Nathanae[Sundaram 833 Cobblestone Court Carol Nosko 824 Pavilion Place Juan Quesada 824 Pavilion Place Pamela Newton 975 Golden Aspen Place Shoshanah Dubiner 922 Mountain Meadows Circle Paul Boon 855 Stony Point Suzanne Smith-Hammerli 991 Golden Aspen Place Mary Ferrari 936 Mountain Meadows Circle Dave Seiden 838 Pavilion Place Cassie Conner 735 Meadowlark Way Gloria Junkermann 906 Mountain Meadows Circle Bill Walker 844 Stony Point Anita Walker 844 Stone Point Alan Berman 817 Pavilion Place Harriet Berman 817 Pavilion Place Lola Eagan 836 Pavilion Place Lucy Strasburg 935 Mountain Meadows Circle Mary Hunt 580 Mountain Meadows Dr Judith Milburn 840 Pavilion Place Kate Thi It 921 Mountain Meadows Circle Sarah Tozier 957 Golden Aspen Place Amelia Franke 980 Golden Aspen Place Jim Cornelius 822 Boulder Creek Lane Carolyn Herb 911 Mountain Meadows Circle Linda Sussman 910 North Mountain Avenue Jo Ann Grady 909 Plum Ridge Drive Daniel DeRoux 909 Plum Ridge Drive Vida Taylor 913 Plum Ridge Drive Vincent Chabot 919 Plum Ridge Drive Nancy Shubert 919 Plum Ridge Drive Ross Gillanders Plum Ridge Drive Ginny Gillanders Plum Ridge Drive Loretta Barlow 921 Patton lane Dennis Tetz 638 Fair Oaks Court Barbara Ricketts 638 Fair Oaks Court Joyce Leighton 626 Fair Oaks Court Gail Engblom 636 Fair Oaks Court Jill Chabers 654 Fair Oaks Court Joy Dobson 624 Fair Oaks Court Frances Brandt 634 Fair Oaks Court Brad Bodzin 616 Fair Oaks Court Fanda Bender 612 Fair Oaks Court Lotus Gabriel 606 Fair Oaks Court John Sells 608 Fair Oaks Court Sally O'Brien 618 Fair Oaks Court Jeremey Dailly 628 Fair Oaks Court Miyo Ishihara 628 Fair Oaks Court - 7- Q181,01flulml i Street Address 674% e6i 19077-7/4 mi gl 'eO se e --r /f dael&W joLe 10� Z 1411, *calm 9 U4411 kliAgic d?, PAY, I A Ad f! /t/ S-38 yyy IN % tJ li— 7 ie� V Lwv\, J�_Vlfl�s i- 06,1f C, d, Cleo A Den IZ� Signatory Supporting Testament on Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development Ilaj . . ff a 1 1 L U0, M1 KI rO- ZEN 2 —WIN, Ull.� M/ i W 191991117)7 M�� `,� MMEF WIF M, 1 1.4 CANEMM _ _ _ f I / •� , L v f - - - - - - - - - ..... 91 d J Signatory Supporting Testament on Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development I 'Name Street Address 11.11,lillo-OwEr mi�l AI jl.11iljj!j�.,,jjjjjji K ...................... ...................... WII 11 111111 al 1 "1 Ow, I a I � Al 11-215-V4 i a . M IM ,4 o lip I Afilill! fy 12LAMIll bs 11 YA Signatory Supporting Testament on Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development Name Street Address \c&, Gari .mssnPoLbu-) &J//7 9 15- C r e- r7 c--- h).1 V AQ io 44ki f Iff-A 5pc )e, F e7 -11A A /17 ry �§k elce, mo —Ft X L -)7 YL, lo A ztv Name Street Address p4A pKn�&� �rw yi- r. m6i Apr IA-xo (n Signatory Supporting Testament on Kestrel Park phase YYY Site Development Name Street Address G � �Ffrl 04 Ic t T; 0 ©G -d C r 63 `f 9- Gi- r[6 6 0 6 0 kkc C1. Ai4 J k If f 1 Signatory Supporting Testament on Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development Name Street Address 2r- Signatory Supporting Testament on Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development Name Street Address aodn�� r �� ✓ . cic4,,,-, Y, 7i5 �Ic5- -,eE,L- PKvv y C7752�0 A 1 f 0 V -e f+,- 7j Z,, 17S 2 p` y, , 77 7 /2 1:�44,,d PR V -(/W Llffk4 UA 44✓ `c s � Y.w ASH LA /e Pi- 6626 r rlgy a/. :, .�� 1 j � r �{, t.j 7 Y t"° e -�• I }....°i ''` r Z7' tl .+1A A we7 ..L . ` `,V I Vw ta ver 1 LP c_.- /VPI f C(1 rW j ! - _0 Michael Sullivan From: Michael Sullivan Sent: Monday, December 09, 2024 11:25 AM To: Michael Sullivan Subject: FW: Kestrel Planning application comment From: David Runkel <davidrunkelor@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2024 10:15 AM To: planning <planning@ashland.or.us> Subject: Kestrel Planning application comment [EXTERNAL SENDER] Please provide the attached to members of the Planning Commission before tomorrow night's hearing. To: Members of Ashland City Planning Commission From: Dan DeRoux, 909 Plum Ridge Drive, David Runkel, 893 Plum Ridge Drive Date: 12/9/24 RE: Kestrel Park III Proposal Before Ashland Planning Commission The developer of the Kestrel Park III, Area 6 proposes to extend the pavement between Julian Square II in the 900 block of Plum Ridge Drive and the private house at 893 Plum Ridge down the hillside to provide vehicular access to 12 new units, each with one parking space. Currently this short, 12 -foot wide pavement provides access to Plum Ridge Drive from the garage attached to 893 Plum Ridge and two garages and a parking spot of the Julian Square II complex. It is not an alley under city code provisions AMC 18.3.5.100.C2. And there is insufficient space on the adjoining private owned land to enable it to be converted into a legal alley. There is less than four feet of space from the edge of the pavement to an air conditioning unit serving a Julian Square unit and only nine feet of space from the edge of the pavement to the wall of the house at 893 Plum Ridge. Not only does the developer's plan for use of this existing pavement and its extension down the hillside toward Stoneridge Drive not meet code provisions for an alley, but the increased traffic would present problems with an evacuation in case of a fire. Access for emergency vehicles also is problematic. At present, Recology trucks and other large vehicles cut into the hillside at the end of the pavement when making a turn north into another short unnamed paved space that is used by other units of Julian Square and four houses facing Patton Lane. We object to the developer's planned use of the existing pavement and its extension that is not authorized under city's code provisions for an alley and cannot see how this can be allowed by the city. ASHLAND NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2024-00054 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax lot 8600 of assessor' map 39-1 E -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 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: 39-1 E -04 -AD; TAX LOT: 8600, 4700, 7800 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday December °f4 2424 of 7.44 PA# Ashiaiid Civic `aiifai, 1,175 East Adaiii Sheet COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305�� Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 ASHLAND 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 in my City" at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable 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.andersoneashland. 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, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. 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. 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.us TTY: 800.735.2900 ,,C II T Y ASHLAND 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. Fxceptfion 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 18.5.7.040.13 Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. C. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 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. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 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. 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.us TTY: 800.735.2900 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On November 19, 2024 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T2-2024- 00054, Kestrel Park, 391 E08AD8600. . MichaeCSuCCivan Signature of Employee G\comm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\PAs by StreeflK\Kestrel\Kestrel Park Subdivision Phase3\Kestrel Park_PA-T2-2024-00054\Noficing\Kestrel Park_PA-T2-2024-00054_NOC_Affidavit of Mailing.docx 4/4/2025 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DB2005 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5700 PA -T2-2024-00054 ADAMS JONATHAN/MELISSA AFI PROPERTIES LLC ALBERTSON LORAINE 806 KESTREL PKY 695 SE J ST 644 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 GRANTS PASS, OR 97526 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 ANDERSON EUGENIA KRAUS TRUSTEE 598 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 AYALA PROPERTIES LLC 584 FAIR OAKS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 BENDER FANDA 612 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA2400 BOWMAN LEE ELLSWORTH TRUSTEE 554 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA2500 BRUMMER STEPHEN DAVID ET AL 544 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 BURTON BOBBY L SEP IRA 654 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CHAPPELL SCOTT 602 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD4800 CROWLEY NANCY C 902 PATTON LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD4500 ASKENAS NELSON REVOCABLE TRUS 246 STREET IVES DR TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD4400 BARLOW LORETTA A 921 PATTON LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD66002 BENTON KENNETH L ET AL 2701 E MESQUITE AVE J47 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PA -T2-2024-00054 BRANDT BRICE TRUSTEE 634 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA4300 BUCHANAN MARY JANE INGALLS TR 542 W NEVADA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CATHERINE GEORGE TRUSTEE 832 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CORNELIUS JAMES 822 BOULDER CR LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6700 DEROUX DANIEL ET AL 909 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD44018 AYALA PROPERTIES LLC 132 W MAIN ST STE 202 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5300 BELENKY DANIEL NATHAN 73 UNION ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC440 BOENITZ DAVID J TRUSTEE ET AL 903 STONERIDGE AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5400 BROWN KATHLEEN G TRUSTEE ETA 25 SAN FELIPE WAY NOVATO, CA 94945 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD4300 BUCK GAYLORD W/BETTY D 931 PATTON LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 CEC ENGINEERING 132 W MAIN ST STE 103 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6400 CRAWFORD JARED N ET AL 917 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6500 GILLANDERS ROSS J TRUSTEE ET 915 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA4500 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6800 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC436 GREENWOOD PAMELA KAY GUTIERREZ LYNDA GAYLE HASSELMAN LYNNE ET AL 422 NANDINA ST 907 PLUM RIDGE DR 916 STONERIDGE AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC919 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD98003 HOLEMAN DENNIS HOW JOHN & WENDREA LIVING TRU HRDLICKA MITCHELL E TRUSTEE E 822 PLUM RIDGE DR 842 KESTREL PKY 586 FAIR OAKS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC923 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5000 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6900 JAMES FOREST JOHNSON CARL ANDREW TRUSTEE E JONES DAVID S/BOWEN-JONES KAT 967 PATTON LN 46 16TH AVE 2000 TAMARACK PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD44000 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD66006 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC922 JULIAN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM JURICKOVICH GAYLE M TRUSTEE E KDA HOMES LLC 663 A ST 821 SATSUMA CT 604 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD98000 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD98004 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8602 KDA HOMES LLC KDA HOMES LLC KEENER SUSAN G TRUSTEE 132 W MAIN ST STE 202 123 W MAIN ST 202 PO BOX 1856 MEDFORD, OR 97501 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ROSS, CA 94957 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8603 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DB2000 PA -T2-2024-00054 KENNY JANIS M TRUSTEE ET AL KESTREL PARK SUB PH 2 HOA KINSINGER TRUSTEE 998 OVERLOOK DR 604 FAIR OAKS CT 591 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD55003 PA -T2-2024-00054 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8601 KNAUERT DENNIS D TRUSTEE ET A KNOX MARK LARKIN CASSANDRA L ET AL 862 PLUM RIDGE DR 670 NEPENTHE RD 434 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8604 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6100 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD7900 LARSON SUSAN MURPHY TR LASH STEPHANIE LENTFER JACK W TRUST ET AL 444 NANDINA ST 925 PLUM RIDGE DR 539 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC5200 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA4400 PA -T2-2024-00054 LINDE ROSWITHA ET AL MACNICHOLS JAMES WARD MARTIN/GEIGEL 438 NANDINA ST 424 NANDINA ST 596 MARIPOSA CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8605 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC441 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD4900 MCCOLLUM JUSTIN G ET AL MCGUIRE BRIAN REV LIV TRUST MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 450 NANDINA ST 57 GRACELAND DR PO BOX 702 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DAl 200 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD7200 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5500 MILLER EDWARD R TRUSTEE MITCHELL SAMUEL L TRUSTEE MITZEL STEVEN D/MICHELE A 161 BROWNS RD 892 PLUM RIDGE DR 532 FAIR OAKS AVE WILLIAMS, OR 97544 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD66001 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA2600 MORAN MERVIN MOUNTAIN MEADOWS PLUM RIDGE C MT MEADOWS OWNERS ASSOCIAT 813 BOULDER CR LN PO BOX 1334 950 GOLDEN ASPEN PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC429 MURPHY CHARLES J FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 15217 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8200 NOYCE RALPH H TRUST ET AL PO BOX 1475 CARMEL VALLEY, CA 93924 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8600 PDK PROPERTIES LLC 1679 JACKSON RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD7700 POLLARD SCOTT T/KEELING KARA 33 WESTOVER RD NEWPORT NEWS, VA 23601 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6200 RALSTON DAVID B TRUSTEE ET AL 369 N LAUREL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 REILICH KIMBERLY 622 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5100 ROGERS TEAL ET AL 922 PATTON LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC913 SHERBOURNE CHRISTIN CAROLINE 889 STONERIDGE AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC437 NASIN MICHAEL E ET AL 913 STONERIDGE AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC918 ORR HELEN & JAMES FAMILY TRUS 854 KESTREL PKY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD7600 POHL ROBERT L TRUSTEE ET AL 843 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA4000 PRICE JEROME/DEBORAH 432 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD44031 READEJEFFREY 614 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5800 RENNIE CAROLYN 562 FAIR OAKS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD7300 RUNKEL DAVID/DONNAN 893 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6300 SHUBAT VINCENT P TRUSTEE ET A 919 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA4100 NEUMANN DAVID TRUST ET AL 430 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC5400 PALMESANO THOMAS 448 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 POLARIS SURVEY 151 CLEAR CREEK DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DA4200 PRICE JESSICA EDITH 426 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5200 REICH CHRISTOPHER B/ANGELA L 502 FAIR OAKS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC435 ROBERTS HILLERY B TRUSTEE ET 923 STONERIDGE AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD4600 SCHWEIZER MEGAN C/CHARLES 905 PATTON LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 SIEGEL FAMILY TRUST 610 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8100 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD5600 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD6600 SKLENSKY ALDEN F TRUSTEE ET A SPOONER RAYMOND M/PAMELA TAYLOR VIDA SUMNER TRUSTEE ET 549 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR 542 FAIR OAKS AVE 913 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD7500 TAYLORED ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTION THOMPSON JEFFREY/MAGGIE 1679 JACKSON RD 863 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 TURNER HELEN 877 N. MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 WEST CHARLES ARTHUR TRUSTEE 592 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DAl 100 WYNN-OWEN LISBETH TRUSTEE ET 803 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD7400 VANDERVORT RONALD/CAROL 583 NANDINA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AC915 WILSON JOHN & TERESA TRUST ET 866 KESTREL PKY ASHLAND, OR 97520 Kestrel Park Phase III NOC 11/19/24 100 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04AD8300 TOWER ROBERT D TRUSTEE ET AL 812 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 WAY ANTHONY TRUSTEE 624 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2024-00054 391 E04DAl 000 WINANS PAUL L JR & REGINA A T 802 PLUM RIDGE DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 11W 'Y FL -AS" Urban Development Services, Inc. Taylored Elements Construction Attn: Mark Knox Attn: Kyle Taylor 670 Nepenthe Rd. 1679 Jackson Rd. Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Kestrel Park Phase 3 PA -T2-2024-00054 Notice of Incomplete application Mr. Knox 11/8/2024 Thank you for providing the revised application. I am excited to move this project forward but there continue to be outstanding issues that will need to be addressed further before the application can be presented before the Planning Commission. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The outstanding issue relates to the particular details of the driveways. There is Inconsistency with driveway configuration between civil plans, landscape plans and KSW Site Plan. Both the Civil plans and landscape plans would require variances to driveway width. While the KSW site plan shows driveways nine -feet in width they do not meet the 24' driveway spacing requirements and would need a variance to that standard (see AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a). Additionally, as we discussed, Public Works has design standards that dictate both a 12' minimum and an 18' maximum driveway width as measured at the sidewalk. This means that any proposal should reflect no less than a twelve -foot driveway width and include findings for a variance. The Staff Advisor has determined the following: • A driveway not consistent with the driveway standards in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan will require a Variance, (not a plan amendment). • Driveway separation of less than 24 feet would also require a Variance. Staff could support a driveway width to allow a 12 -foot driveway width for single family homes or up to the maximum of 18 -foot for shared garages width in keeping with the Engineering standards, with strong findings from the applicant demonstrating that this was the minimum necessary. Finally, the Multifamily development is considered commercial and is required to have a twenty -foot width to accommodate two-way traffic, where it is presently shown as only 18'. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 110 �u Ashland Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050si� Ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 11W 'Y AF L" Attached to this letter is a form providing three options of how to move forward with regard to these items. Let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of these items further. Please don't hesitate to contact me at (541) 552-2052. Regards, /s/ Aaron Anderson Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner City of Ashland, Planning Division (541) 552-2052 or ��,gr�.p_n �"�_rp.der.s .r4.. Cc: file COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 Ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 11W 'Y AF L" Applicant's Statement of Completeness (To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division) Re: PA -T3-2024-00010, 300 Clay St. Date Application Expires: March 17, 2025 Pursuant to an incompleteness determination, I, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elects one of the three options below by initialing: ( --- ) 1. Submit All of the Missing Information (Initial if elected) I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 30 -day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review. (Note: The 120 -day period for the City of Ashland's final determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional review for completeness period is completed.) ❑ Check if desired - I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code criteria, regardless of whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff to be incomplete. I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon the material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If material information is missing from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met, and the application will be denied. ( --- ) 2. Submit Some of the Requested Information: (Initial if elected) Decline to Provide Other Information I am submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all information the City of Ashland believes necessary, the Ashland Planning Division may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. ( --- ) 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested Information (Initial if elected) I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the Community Development Department may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. ----------------------- -------- Signed and Acknowledged Date (Applicant or Applicant's Agent) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 Ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 1 Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Kestrel Park Phase III Site De DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE # ment Pursuing LEED® Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO Street Address Primary Frontage on Stoneridge Ave, Ashland OR 97520 Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E Lj . U11 Tax Lot(s) 8600 Zoning NM—MF Comp Plan Designation North Mountain Plan APPLICANT Name Taylored Elements Construction Phone 541 -690 -1617E -Mail office@tayloredelements.com Address 1679 Jackson Rd cityAshland OR zip 97520 PROPERTY OWNER Name PDK Properties, LLC Phone 541 -621 -8095E -Mail kyle@tayloredelements.com Address 1679 Jackson Rd. city Ashland zip97520 SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER TitleCivil Engineer Name CEC Engineering Phone 541-779-5268 E -Mail mark@cecengineering.com Address 132 W Main St. # 103, city Medford zip 97501 Title Surveyor Name Polaris Survey Phone 541-601-3000 E -Mail shawn@solarissuivey.com Address 151 Clear Creek Dr. city Ashland zip 97520 1 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. /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. 1 further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that 1 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 1 have any doubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. 11.1.2024 Applicant's Signature Date 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 (required) [To be completed by City Staff] 11.1.2024 Date Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER N G:\comm-dev\planning\Forms & Handouts\Zoning Permit Application.doc Page Number: 1 ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ❑ APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. u 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. o TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS — Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11x17 inches. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. o 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. G:\comm-dev\planrung\Forms & Handouts\Zoning Permit Application.doc Page Number: 2 '+b . . ,w 'rye r z ..... o�.. _, A.-�.. ,, PHASE . ,�, �od„ iract "BAreas 4, 5, 6 4.w. 7 A PROPOSAL FOR A 15 -LOT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION, SITE REVIEW PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND FOR TAYLORED ELEMENTS 1679 JACKSON RD, ASHLAND, OR 97520 r — — — — — — �n rv✓ y i�/, rr H Y-' V ' �lil �lIJ�I Subject Site k i//%i ✓ a 1 (approximate area within approved ✓ ✓✓r ���;� + l' ��' �A Kestrel Park 8 l� ✓ iii �� r � � ars � � i Subdivision) L � � a. � >.� � vafv/EPa�ilyri/OIRryN✓�u r4 , f ,,,, ��l".�Aa A�1Rl4��fl✓✓ i u��nnrin �,u �,�,,,� �A�'��,<,� 1 � . � . !1 � I � ,, .�, Lege NM -(,D ter. NIM,G Bear Creek��`' rig w pair , i 1/%%%%%%%%%/ NM -R 17.5 0 0 1215 0,25 Wes North Mountain Zoning Map NOVEMBER 1sT 2024 Page Number: 3 L PROJECT INFORMATION: PROJECT NAME: "Kestrel Park Phase 3" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Area 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Kestrel Park Subdivision APPLICANT: LAND USE PLANNING: ENGINEER: PDK Properties, LLC Urban Development Services, LLC CEC Engineering 1679 Jackson Road 670 Nepenthe Road 132 W. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501 PROJECT ZONING: As illustrated in the inserted Zoning Map (above), the property is zoned North Mountain NM -MF (multi -family). The subject property is part of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and is referenced as Areas 4, 5, 6 & 7 on those plans. Areas 1, 2 & 3 have been recorded, public infrastructure completed and single family and cottage housing construction has occurred. This particular proposal is regulated by the AMC, Chapters 18.3.5 (North Mountain Neighborhood District), 18.3.9 (Performance Standards Option Subdivision) and 18.5.2 (Site Review). PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval for a Performance Standards Option Subdivision to create 15 lots within the Kestrel Park Subdivision within the North Mountain Park Neighborhood Master Plan area. A total of 38 units are proposed, consisting of a mixture unit sizes and Page Number: 4 housing types, including multi -family apartments which are subject to a Site Review Permit. Of the proposed 38 units, 28 are apartment units on four lots and 10 are single family residences. Of the 38 units identified on the site plans, 20 units are less than 500 sq. ft. and 18 are greater than 500 sq. ft. A Tree Removal permit is also being sought to remove a volunteer multi -trunk Cherry Tree. 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 offuture home owners and not part of this application. �r9° d j' t 4fr�s' ryw, r ;95719 wi �,,� ��� m.nli:,� ,'�' P I iL!r t4' W „�_ .!� _ r _ `�;",� nJ k7 �y k" d F,5 rd�'7f'00 J' 6 E' 4, 34 ,7. `"- ,,. 12 <N N ,. otd"1"4 'k u K µTRACTIb LOT 0 15 a .w�'"" ," .�.�'" a 1 ° ' W� ruR t1 ' +YYir a M ' LOT 9 LOT 14 '�r ,� AREA, B �.�.rer"s rL,`RR xa" ZC!� ^� wTrr?• �P ."re. °� �u ,, • � ^� a ph .'�M�Y bjv�r rf°aJ'r .� � ry N �'9 5� iN E �' v. LOT' a,A��, ...""^"° '".. earl rP iy^997 Pr S P , S �r, asps 7 Yr a (� a IDT6 w X1.5 �'� r, SDDT 1 O. t 3 70 ACRES' eILR1$.4 4 j 1 M1ta ��- � � „ ,. ,. ,. F ° K� "� AN r MMONA EA"B'" r 4 TL MW 9 ✓" Vy01 M yr qx ��Fl•iTASE'2) I i� A T� � a w 1ACRES 5M1W(ic WIriN �A,`rGVJ�k [kP yL'IY A. yCW TIWN PLA e r i F h - l' ViI4eFAd bvf5 w!Gt �it k LOS2P 0 LOT ansFv ;;�Y uaE�dfNr° _,�FCR 0 IL ti / Lwwl RtlER t� a LOT A 9 99,118,24" W 4 8 R1� LOQ LOT I r�ar�� ar• w 4�w�,r�,�'.� 15 W 6 Fina Dig ,7 ,,,,,,,,, r""� ... �'En^ ry,,�! r;'+';�5" I"c7 De� m. _.— x:77 W — ?...... 4 ---'6 _ J'Gr� ti�r'iM KS�r�r (CA.Yf...j ,'. +r` � ` r•_.. 22ry ST BO yw a 111µutr ,. P'ir°;b� t .. w vc �'p 4\, Kestrel Park Subdivision Plan (portion ot) — Outlined Proposed Development Area (Tract `B" — Phase III) PROJECT HISTORY: Beginning in 1995, the City of Ashland held a number of neighborhood meetings, including a design charrette, between property owners and neighbors of the North Mountain area which included City staff and Professional Land Use Consultants. The effort eventually culminated in a master plan called the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan which was adopted in 1997 (Ord #2800) and included amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map, Land Use Code and Site Page Number: 5 Design and Use Standards to guide the eventual development. The expected build -out period at that time was estimated at 20 years. In 2004, a large portion of the North Mountain Neighborhood was approved for an 81 -lot subdivision by a Development Company called Camelot Homes who developed a majority of the subdivision's road and a few homes, but later sold the property due to the poor economy. The remaining areas of the North Mountain Neighborhood are either pending eventual development or were developed between 2005-2017 by other property owners, including the Julian Square Mixed -Use Development, Great Oaks Subdivision, Plumb Ridge Subdivision, Mountain Meadows Retirement Center and the newly constructed three-story condominium building on the corner of Plum Ridge Court and Fair Oaks Avenue. In December of 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Final Plan proposal for a 15 -unit, 17 -lot subdivision for Areas 1 and 2 of the Kestrel Park Subdivision, including a remainder parcel which included identified future phasing Areas #3 - #7 (PA -T1-2019-00075). This area or phase of the master plan consists of single family detached homes which are predominately completed. In July of 2020, the Planning Commission approved a Final Plan proposal for a 15 -unit, 16 -lot subdivision for Area 3 of the Kestrel Park Subdivision, including a remainder parcel which included identified future phasing Areas #4 - #7 (PA -T1-2020-00113). This area or phase of the master plan consists of attached and detached cottage homes which have been completed. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Areas 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Kestrel Park Subdivision is 2.27 acres. The property is surrounded by existing development within the North Mountain Neighborhood and developed as part of the North Mountain Neighborhood Master Plan. The subject property is vacant and relatively steep. The slope of the property is generally east to west and ranges from 7% to 15%. Other than the slope of the property and a multi -pronged Cherry Tree, there are no other natural features on the property, but there are multiple public streets or alleys that extend to the property that were designed to connect and extend through the property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision: As illustrated within the attached Preliminary PUD Map (Kestrel Park, Phase III), the applicants are proposing Tract B (as illustrated within the insert on Page 3 (Areas #4, #5, #6 and #7)) be divided into 15 lots with the majority of the housing being on the most level and least sloping area of the property (Areas #6 and #7). These areas will be divided by public streets which will extend to and through the property from the adjoining neighborhoods (see Assessor's Map insert on Page 5 - hi -lighted areas). There are two existing alleys abutting the property that will eventually be extended or widened to accommodate City Street Standards and the North Mountain Plan's intent for street and pedestrian connectivity. The alley (no name) within the northeast corner of the property will extend along the north side of the property in an east to west direction and cross through the rights-of-way of Patton Lane and Stoneridge Avenue as well as two existing public alleys. This particular alley aligns with a pedestrian path that Page Number: 6 connects from Stoneridge down to Kestrel Parkway and Kestrel Park. The other existing public alley is called Mariposa Court which extends north to south connecting to Nandina Street and Plum Ridge Drive (see insert on Page #5 - below). The alley as well as the necessary infrastructure to serve the proposal exists within the adjacent rights-of-way and was originally designed and installed by the original developers to extend to and through the subject property. Grading, drainage, street, and utility plans are included in this submittal. Such plans have been coordinated and designed in concert with various service agencies and City staff. 4 OO '„ 0{112 Ac.� 3 4908 48M8 001Ac t 1r s;ri EE 012 Ac PLUG 1a, 4 XC z ,r, 6708, Qk 7g8,m 001A . V STREE RL UI Ir a 81,05 CS 2314,E 0 00 AC 30 " �1 u �s� C S 232 ,2 n �L 8 04 0,04 Ac 10110 w 8603 a� a ,g5 Ar y ,� t� 08 c 8PT 14— a27 D31 UlAyDrIt 0 06 AC ARE"271 i' 10 g 05 Ac 69018 1 I Sul \ F „ 1 ry 92 5U 7300 7200 0.12 Ac. �.1 �! ���. 4 n r'M 2 748,0 012 Ac. k 5 T .NII ST. art "M 708 D 11 mac. EI T CS 16571 648,' qq L A = .11 Ac,.1 . 7, 7 700 W 0.1111 Ac, 4 910 �q �M-6 �a q pN^ 79000 � o ���� rr 0�ry µµ �""pppp f� 0, 12. Ac.4A IIG:, n08 Ac. yww '., nJ CS 16309 IiL Site Review Permit: A Site Review Permit is also being proposed for all attached housing, including the proposed apartments. The general purpose of the Site Review Permit is for the City to evaluate project landscaping, screening, exterior building design and parking, in accordance with Chapter 18.5.2. Site plans, Landscaping plans and architectural elevation plans have been submitted identifying compliance with Chapter 18.5.2. Page Number: 7 Tree Removal: As identified within the photo to the right, a multi -trunk volunteer Cherry Tree has been identified in the upper southeast corner of property, within Area 7, that will need to be removed due to its proximity to the proposed structures and parking area (specifically Units 1 & 2) and would also conflict with planned utilities, drainage and grade changes within the immediate vicinity. The tree is roughly 14" dbh at its base (combined trunk dimension) and stands roughly 10' tall. A total of 29 trees will be planted specifically within Area 7, including multiple mitigations trees within the vicinity of the Cherry Tree. PROJECT DETAILS: Density (As approved with the Kestrel Park Subdivision - PA -2018-00005): The Kestrel Park Subdivision was approved as a Performance Options Standard Subdivision in compliance with the North Mountain Neighborhood District's design and dimensional standards noted in AMC Chapter 18.3.5. The Kestrel Park Subdivision has two zones, NM -R-1-7.5 and NM -MF with a minimum and maximum density requirement between 75% and 110% of each zone's base density. The table below attempts to break -down the minimum and maximum density requirements based on the subdivision's zoning, acreage and recent approvals: NM Zone NM -G NM -R-1-7.5 NM -MF Acres 5.99 ac 2.76 ac 4.74 ac Dwelling Units Per Acre - 3.6 12 75% to 110% Base Density Requirement - 7.42-11.02 42.66 — 62.56 ((56.88 - base)) Approved Density (Phase I — Areas 1 & 2) - 11 4 Approved Density (Phase I — Area 3) - - 15 Permitted Density (Phase H—Areas 4 - 7) - 23.66* 43.56** Minimum vs. Maximum Density: In order to ensure the City's minimum and maximum density standards within the North Mountain Neighborhood District are complied with, the following explanation has been provided: * 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 S 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 Page Number: 8 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 applicants believe the proposal is not only more capable of adapting over time (up front consideration of utility sizing, building codes, fare codes, etc.), but also is simply more transparent to all parties about possible outcomes. Unit Size and Type: As noted, a total of 38 units are proposed for Phase III with this application, but have varying unit sizes and types. There are a total of 28 multi -family dwelling units less than 600 sq. ft. of which 8 are less than 400 sq. ft., 12 units under 500 sq. ft. and 8 under 600 sq. ft. for an average of 487 sq. ft. per unit with a range from 363 sq. ft. to 603 sq. ft. There are also units that are single family detached and single family attached units. In addition to the proposed apartments, any provided accessory unit in the future, due to the slope of the property and their design above/below a single family residence, would be considered "rental" housing both of which have been considered needed housing types in multiple housing studies adopted by the City of Ashland. Architectural Design: The site's east to west slope, coupled with the requirement to connect existing streets, adherence to various design standards and consideration of neighborhood context has significantly influenced the proposal's building designs. The most noticeable is the fact that all of the units are two- story near the top of the property (least sloping area) and one -and -a -half story designs from the middle to the bottom of the property due to the property's change in slope from relatively level to steeper slopes. Because of the slopes, portions of the ground floors, "day light basement" type space, sit below a habitable floor above which allows units to nestle into the hillside similar to many other existing houses within the North Mountain neighborhood (see illustration below). Architectural elevations have been included with the application and illustrate attractive facades for all of the proposed units and reflect designs that include a variety of architectural elements that break-up the facades such as added gables, windows, porches, decks, changes in materials, inset and reset volumes, etc. All of the proposed designs are similar to what can be found within the North Mountain Neighborhood. The design team has considered neighborhood input which have included changes to include shallow roof pitches to reduce building mass and to preserve views. Also, the multi -family units in Area 6, along the east side, have changed from a linear plane of mass along the east property line to two buildings separated by the driveway. Page Number: 9 Traffic — Trip Generation: As noted, the subject property is the third phase of a three-phase subdivision (Kestrel Park Subdivision) and thus multiple neighborhood meetings have occurred with primary concerns relating to view impacts, construction noise, HOA dues and traffic. This is understandable and the applicants have attempted to address concerns as practicably as possible which include providing various plans and documents, re -design of various units and in both July of 2018 and most recently in September of 2024, the applicants have consulted with two independent Traffic Engineers who have concluded no intersection traffic impacts occur or mitigations are necessary as each operate at above Level of Service Standard B or higher currently and after the Kestrel Park Subdivision is fully developed. Furthermore, during informal discussions, both Traffic Engineers stated the subdivision's "street connectivity" design is a means to spread not only proposed vehicular trips, but also existing vehicle trips that are currently concentrated at Fair Oaks Avenue and North Mountain Avenue, but with the proposed street connections with Nandina Street and Plum Ridge Drive as well as Patton Lane / Mountain Meadows Drive and North Mountain Avenue, traffic (vehicle trips) will be spread more evenly throughout the North Mountain Master Plan area AND give alternative means for ingress/egress of emergency vehicles. Lastly, all of the planned streets, alleys and private driveways have been designed in accordance with City Street Standards, including on -street parking dimensions, curb radius, street widths, etc., all of which "mirror" existing streets within the Master Plan Area. Note: As noted previously, the applicant has attempted to evaluate the Kestrel Park Subdivision in a comprehensive manner that helps evaluate building design, inf°astructure capacity, parking and traffic impacts. In this specific case, only 38 units are proposed, but 48 units have been evaluated in the traffic study. Circulation: The proposal includes various connection points, both vehicular and pedestrian in context with not only the existing neighborhood(s), but also the intent of the original North Mountain Master Plan as a neo -traditional neighborhood which allows vehicle trips to be spread via a multiple street grid pattern Page Number: 10 as well as short pedestrian connections to and through multiple blocks. Specifically, as identified in the northwest corner of Area 5 stairs are proposed that will connect "partial" and proposed pathways/alleys on the east side of the neighborhood to the recently completed pedestrian path on the west side and down to Kestrel Park. Further, the extension of Patton Way follows a well-worn pedestrian path where pedestrians walk from the lower side of the neighborhood to the upper where the ending terminus of Mountain Meadows Drive exists. As proposed, the proposal will continue to enhance the North Mountain Neighborhood's various routes to walk, bike or drive and continue to improve on the overall livability of the neighborhood. Stoneridge Avenue, Patton Lane and Nandina Streets: Instead of the required 48' right-of-way, Stoneridge Avenue, Patton Lane and Nandina Street's 46'/47' current right-of-way width was approved by the Planning Commission (PA -T1-2019-00075) at the time of the original Kestrel Park Subdivision application in 2019 with the condition the North Mountain street standards for driving width (22'), plant strip (8') and sidewalk (5') be retained and that such improvements could be allowed within a public easement. The general reasoning behind the request during that time was to mitigate excessive cut and fill areas along both sides of the street, but to also recognize an error in the original NM street standards that did not include the dimension of curbs (6" on each side of street). In this case, the applicants are complying with the approved decision as illustrated on Sheet A.2 of the preliminary civil plans which identifies 22' of street width, a 6" curb, 8' plant strip and 5' of sidewalk, of which, a portion of the sidewalk extends (roughly 6" on each side of street) into the planned public utility and sidewalk easement along the property's frontage. Landscape Plan: Within the submittals, a fully developed landscape plan is provided which illustrates planting of trees, shrubs and groundcover through -out the Phase III subdivision, including the park -rows along the streets. The plan was developed by KenCairn Landscape Architects located in Ashland with over 30 years of experience with planting plans, tree preservation and xeriscape designs within the Southern Oregon climate. The planting legend identifies plantings that thrive in the region, most which can be found in the surrounding neighborhoods, and comply with City standards. Utilities: Existing public utilities with capacity to service the proposed housing units have been designed and installed during the construction of the abutting streets and alleys. The attached Civil Plans illustrates the various utilities and their extension to the proposed units. The project's Civil Engineer has communicated with City staff to insure the subject infrastructure needs meet City standards and address all capacity requirements. At the time of the Final Plan submittal, as well as the Engineering Departments final sign -off of the street construction drawings, the plans will be further refined and formalized. Water: The property is currently served by eight -inch water mains that will be able to connect into the proposed layout. The existing water lines extend to and through Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Sewer: The property is currently served by an eight -inch sanitary sewer main extending from Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Electricity: The applicants have met with the Electric Department and discussed the backbone installation of a three-phase system to serve the development. The Electric Department has suggested that the Page Number: 11 applicant carefully consider the needs for later phases of the development, including such details as accessory units and chargers for electric vehicles, will be provided, up front as addressing these in the initial infrastructure design will be more efficient and less costly than adding them after the fact in a later phase. The applicants indicate that a final electrical distribution will be provided for review with the Final Plan submittal. Urban storm drainage: As with the various utilities, 12" storm drain facilities exist within the adjacent rights-of-way abutting the property which collect urban run-off and transfer it down to a 12" main in Kestrel Parkway and out to the subdivision's storm water collection basin within the recently constructed in the Bear Creek open space area. Vehicular Parking: Parking has been provided per City code based on the type and size of the proposed units. See below: Area #4: 2 Single Familv Units On -Site Parking Provided 4 garage spaces 4 driveway spaces On -Street Parking Provided* 4 along Patton Lane 4 along Nandina Street Parking Required 4 parking spaces * On -street parking is `public" and provided on one side of street, in this case along the west side of Patton Lane and 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. ) UI N T ���� 2 K III Garage Driveway O FTM LOT 32 LOT Public 101Pa g; Page Number: 12 6 Single Family Units On -Site Parking Provided 8 garage spaces 7 driveway spaces On -Street Parking Spaces* 10 along Stoneridge Ave 8 along Patton Lane 4 along Nandina Street Parking Required 11 parking spaces * 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 Lane and 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. Area #5: .... ""TMS}yqw ..4 I 111 P a g � "; Page Number: 13 16Al2artment Units 367 sq. ft. (8) 617 sq. ft. (8) On -Site Parking 16 garage spaces 4 open spaces 1 open handicap space On -Street Parking* 4 on -street spaces shared w/ Area #7 8 along Patton Lane * On -street parking is `public" and provided on v one side of street, in this¢�� case, along the west side of west side of Patton Lane and sough side of Nandina g.,�t; Street.. All on -street parking spaces are `public" spaces ti for anyone to use, but provide additional options for when demand occurs. Area #6: JULIAN CT. r 21D AID,' Rh Jff OIF VON' , - .• a LOT 3 s 1 �,e -, LOT 37 �-I LST 40 •.�"^ ,..:�'� , , 4, r"IA 121Pa g; Page Number: 14 2 Single Family Units 12 Apartment Units 498 sq. ft. (6) 434 sq. ft. (5) 400 sq. ft. (1) On -Site Parking 4 garage spaces 4 driveway spaces 11 open spaces 1 open handicap space On -Street Parking* 4 along Nandina Street 4 along Patton Lane * Parking is provided on one side of street, in this case, along the south side ofNandina Street and 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.. Area #7: �. ,.. ,`:O , 0011`11 2240" - V Bike Parking: The apartment units within Areas 6 and 7 require covered bike parking - one per unit. In Area 6, 16 bike parking spaces are located on the ground floor between parking stalls, under the canopy of the upper floor area. In Area 7, each unit includes a bike parking space within the unit, to be provided and verified at the time of a final Certificate of Occupancy. Recycling & Refuse Areas: Single family residences will include individual recycling and refuse cans stored within the garages and/or screened. The multi -family units within Areas 6 and 7 include shared receptacle facilities as identified on the site plans. Such facilities will be screened from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way via a solid wood fence or masonry wall five to six feet in height. 131Pa g; Page Number: 15 Recreational Space & Maintenance Provisions: 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. The planning and dedication of these areas are critical to the subdivision's residents, neighbors and community as they provide for both natural preservation and physical recreational opportunities for pedestrian walking, active hiking, wading in creek, bird watching and for bicycling once the future extension of the Bear Creek Greenway is realized. As noted, the subject property is identified as Phase III of the Kestrel Park Subdivision with Phase I approved in 2019 (15 single family houses) and Phase II approved in 2020 (15 residential cottages). Phase III has been identified on each Phase I and II plats as a future phase and also included within the overall subdivision's legal documents (CC&Rs, Plat, HOA Board) for a variety of reasons, most notably for management of the subdivision's shared open spaces, common utilities, common landscape areas, street trees and irrigated park rows. 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. It should also be noted that Phase I's Board is the overarching Board of the other phases and each other Phase, primarily for Phases II and III, include their "own" specific HOA Board and legal documents for the management and maintenance of specific elements within each of those phases such as common area trash and recycle receptacles, common stairs, railings, parking, landscaping, etc. As such, Phase III will include similar provisions, for example Area 6, will include legal agreements for the maintenance and financial commitments of common areas such as the shared driveway and shared trash and recycling receptacle. Areas 4, 5 and 7 do not share common areas, but will have maintenance provisions for common wall construction and be subject to the subdivision's HOA dues. Electric Vehicle Charging: Multi -family residential developments with five or more dwelling units shall provide electrical service capacity by extending conduit to support future electric vehicle charging infrastructure to at least 40 percent of the off-street parking spaces provided. The applicants are aware of this provision and will include with the building construction documents. Solar Access: All proposed structures as illustrated within the submittals have been designed to meet Chapter 18.4.8, Solar Access. Specifically, the proposed structures will comply with Solar Access Standard "A" which is intended to not have a building's shadow exceed a height of 6' at the shared northern property line on December 21s' (Winter Solstice). The 6' fence dimension noted, is part of a standard formula intended to replicate a typical 6' fence along the property's northern property line meaning no shadow impacts will occur on the adjacent properties to the north other than what a permitted 6' fence creates. That said, because home designs and heights vary for articulated interest, handicap access, building codes, owner preference or physical characteristics of the property, the applicant will submit building permits for each of the proposed structures which will include data (height, slope, setback, etc.) verifying compliance with Chapter 18.4.8., Solar Access. 141Pa g; Page Number: 16 Time Schedule of the Development: The applicant intends to install the streets and infrastructure in a single period which will improve the circulation of the neighborhood prior to dwelling unit construction. The proposed dwelling units will be constructed as the market dictates and/or financing permits. At the present time, the applicant is working with a design team to develop building permit drawings and the project's Civil Engineers are communicating with City Engineers to refine the civil plans in preparation of a spring of 2025 construction date. Neighborhood Meetings: Over the last few years, the consultant has held at least four neighborhood meetings to discuss the Kestrel Park Subdivision plan, including the future development of Areas 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Phase III). The intention of the neighborhood meetings were an attempt to inform neighbors, some of which have moved since the initial 2018 meetings, of the pending development of the property and hear their input about the proposal. These meetings included the background history of the North Mountain Master Plan as well as the plan's zoning, street connectivity, design concepts, purpose, etc. One specific request was to redesign Area 6's housing footprints in order to reduce building and roof mass along the adjoining neighbor(s) property (east side). Other: The subject property is owned by PDK Properties, LLC and managed by Taylored Elements, located in Ashland. The applicant intends to self -finance the proposal and use conventional lending when necessary. II. PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT: The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the requirements and procedures outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) pertaining to Performance Standards Options Subdivision requirements in Chapter 18.3.9 and Site Design Review in Chapter 18.5.7.040. For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline" form with the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, there are a number ofresponses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings offact are complete. AMC 18.3.9.040 A.3. Outline Plan Approval Criteria (Subdivision) 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. Unless otherwise noted herein, the applicants contend the proposed subdivision meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. 151Pa g; Page Number: 17 That said, the Purpose Statement of the Performance Standards Option Subdivision (AMC 18.3.9.010) "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". As such, the proposal has: 1) Stressed energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation: The applicants are proposing to construct Earth Advantage homes with an architectural style that provides for a variety of housing types that are consistent with the volume and mass of housing in the adjoining subdivisions; 2) Used the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage: Phase III of the Kestrel Park Subdivision has the least amount of natural features, compared to Phases I and II which included the Bear Creek Greenway dedication, improvements, numerous trees and wetlands. Phase III has little natural features, but recognizes the site's significant east to west slope. That said, the proposed streets and house plans are designed to terrace themselves into the slopes in an attempt to reduce excessive cut and fill areas. In this regard, the subdivision's design and street patterns remain consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Further, the applicants have purposefully placed the densest housing type (rental apartments) on the least sloping areas of the property (east side — Areas 6 and 7). 3) Provide for a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes: The applicants have generated a plan that incorporates the site's slope and embraced the "human scale" concepts of found in other Performance Standard Options Subdivisions which have produced neighborhoods such as the North Mountain Neighborhood, Kestrel Park, Ashland Village, Beach Creek and Clay Creek Gardens neighborhoods which include various neo -traditional elements such as porches, street connectivity, use of alleys where possible, mitigated garage facades, street facing homes, etc.; 4) Provide for more efficient land use: The mixture of housing types within the planned range of densities in an integrated pattern improves transportation options and maximizes community interaction; 5) Reduces the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood: As noted, this particular phase is part of the Kestrel Park Subdivision which incorporated multiple preservation efforts in both Phase I and II. Phase III does not really have any significant natural features, but does include climate friendly construction techniques including full utilization of the property with small to medium sized housing units with the densest housing being constructed on the least sloping areas of the property (east side). Further, it has been the primary goal of the application to mitigate impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods by ensuring street, alley and pedestrian connectivity aligns with the surrounding neighborhood's streets, alleys and pedestrian paths. The applicants contend the overall design of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and inclusion of these elements noted herein reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment and surrounding neighborhoods. 161Pa g; Page Number: 18 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. All of the site's necessary utilities extend to the subject property from the various public utility easements and street rights -of way surrounding the site. Existing public utilities with capacity to service the proposed housing units have been designed and installed during the construction of the abutting streets and alleys. The attached preliminary Civil Plans illustrates the various utilities and their extension to the proposed units. The project's Civil Engineer has communicated with City staff to insure the subject infrastructure needs meet City standards and address all capacity requirements. At the time of the Final Plan submittal, as well as the Engineering Departments final sign -off of the street construction drawings, the plans will be further refined and formalized. Water: The property is currently served by eight -inch water mains that will be able to connect into the proposed layout. The existing water lines extend to and through Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Sewer: The property is currently served by an eight -inch sanitary sewer main extending from Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Electricity: The applicants have met with the Electric Department and discussed the backbone installation of a three-phase system to serve the development. The Electric Department has suggested that the applicant carefully consider the needs for later phases of the development, including such details as accessory units and chargers for electric vehicles, will be provided, up front as addressing these in the initial infrastructure design will be more efficient and less costly than adding them after the fact in a later phase. The applicants indicate that a final electrical distribution will be provided for review with the Final Plan submittal. Urban storm drainage: As with the various utilities, 12" storm drain facilities exist within the adjacent rights-of-way abutting the property which collect urban run-off and transfer it down to a 12" main in Kestrel Parkway and out to the subdivision's storm water collection basin within the recently constructed in the Bear Creek open space area. 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. To the best of the applicants' abilities, the site's natural features have been identified and included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas of the Kestrel Park Subdivision, specifically in the Phase I area. Overall, the plan recognizes the site's significant natural features such as the Bear Creek riparian corridor traversing through the property and the numerous mature trees within the corridor and open space areas and have not only incorporated such features into the design, but have also made such features an integral part of the subdivision's human scale character such as the pedestrian walkway 171Pa g; Page Number: 19 extending from the top of the subdivision (east side) down to the Bear Creek Greenway and Kestrel Park (west side). d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is surrounded on all sides by urbanized lands in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, including existing residential subdivisions to the north, east and west. As such, the development of the subject property 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. Most of the Kestrel Park Subdivision's open space areas have been incorporated within the initial Phase I and Phase II areas. No open space areas are proposed in Phase III, but common areas do exist in Areas #6 and 7 for shared driveways, common landscaping and irrigation as it relates to the individual parcels occupied with multi -family housing. At the time of the Final Plan application, draft CC&Rs will be submitted detailing the maintenance responsibilities of such areas. Lastly, it should be noted the property owners within the Phase III area are included in the overall Kestrel Park Home Owners Association, subject to Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CCRs), financial dues and meeting procedures in order to ensure maintenance of the subdivision's common areas. A copy of the CC&Rs has previously been provided with the Phase I Final Plan application submittal. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. As noted on Pages 5 and 6, the proposed density meets the base density standards for the zone and remain in compliance with the original density allocations provided for in the Kestrel Park Subdivision approval documents. g. The development complies with the street standards. The proposed streets comply with the Planning Commission's previously approved findings of fact as noted below from the original Kestrel Park Subdivision's 2019 approval (PA -T1-2019-00075). The Planning Commission finds that the NNINNIP includes its o, vn igeighborirood-specific street types and design standards in ANIC 18 %.5.100. C. With relgard to the specific iinpro «eineilts proposed "Greenway Drh-e "a Kestrel Parkway is coiisidered to be the Greemi ay Drive street tyle. �qnd the 1'laannin , t=°onnnis,_,,io r finds that the cross-section ilhistrated on Exhibit C.2 is consisteirt with the adopted Greeirx ay Drive doss, -section in time NN'1NNP. 181P a g; Page Number: 20 c, Neighborhood Access Streets. The renialiiin=. streets (NI'andina Street. Stoneridge Avenue, Patton T.ane. and Zare Way) are considered to, be Neigghborlio,od Access Streets. The Plaiiiiill� C I oinillission finds that in extending existing street sections and responding to site topographY. these indivi4tal streets vary frorn the standard cross-stctioil as follolvs�: 0 Stoneridge Avenue — As illustrated. the curb to curb 3.vidth includes a sing -le 15 -foot queuing lane and parking on both sides except where l_ilinp-outs are propo�ed Standard sideuvalks and parkroware illu� trated on the do-wiihill side. but on the uphill side. sidetiu7�9,lks are showii at the curt)side presuillably iii response to site topography. The pfopC,sCcl lj�,l - . Jt_of_$�i ay dedication is 46 feet %vliere the standard cross-sectiou calls for 48 feet. �vith six-lilches of sidewalk on the uphill side and 18-Inclies of side�valk oil the do-wiihill side illustrated being providedontsic-le of the right-of-way. 0 Nandina Street — The upp,er sections orf Nandina. from Mariposa to Stoneridge. are illustrated as a 219-fcQ,t curt) -to -curb width Nvithin as 47 -foot rigrht-of-ivay, and on -street parking on both sides. Standard sidewalks and park -row plantinca strips are illustrated on the south side. and ori -street parking is in bays '"71th curbside sidewalks on the north side. Sidetiu7�9.lks on the scauth side are illustrated extending one-f6ot beyond the dedicated rilalit- of-',vay. The applicants have requested as major inodificationof the NMI" P to install Nalidilla Street as as one-au,.ay couplet around Wethand 2 As proposed. Nandina within the couple v.rollld have an I 8 -foot curb -ter -curt) ,vidth,,vith curbs but no sidewalks or parkro"T planting stri Z. Ps on the interior. -wetland side and five-foot v.ridth curbside sidewalks on the extefloi- side adjacent to flue surrounding developable lots. The applicants assert that additional area has been provided for the ivethand buffer. and that this area already contains a number of trees that will be preservt-d and will be further enhanced 1.vith new plantingas. The Plaiiiiing Commission finds that an Exception is merited to limit impacts af the dtvelopment upon the wetland and its protection zone. liov.rever the Con-unission further finds that even Ivith an Exception irrigated larger-,;.,WtUre sp,tcies street trees should be planted at a staiidard spacing, of one per 30 feet within tlie private yard areas behind the sldea,valk to provide canopy and as� ociated streetscape benefits, (sIiade, traffic calming. etc.). Patton Lane —The two illustrated segilient's, of Patton Lane Include var a ri alit- o f -way ?', '71 - v,ridths fi-oni 46 to 50 feet. and illustrate sorne portion of the sideivalks outFide of the proposed right-of-way. The sectioun bet"Teen the existing Patton Lane extending to Nandilla Street does not include parkro,.vs on the doiviihill side iii responsc to site topography The section frorn Nandiii.q. to Mountain Meadows Drive includes, .9. 26 -foot curb -to -curb width J'sijtll a I "_foot (111,ellilIg lane where the standard cross-section calls for 15 feet The Plaiininc,, Coinrnis� ioii finds that this -vvidth is proposed in tramitioning to the existi.112 N'lountain 7_v1eado-%,v,,, Drivt- 1111proven'lent which is narrower. and that the Final Phan hill inclucie final civil drawim-ts for review by the Engineering Division to verify tile Engineering � IPP ropriate v,-idth for tliis transitiori A condition to, this effect lias 1beenz included belo,"T. The Planning Commission finds that for all neighborhood stree sectloiis (Patton, Nandina and Stoneridg;:) %vhere sidewalk improvenients are sliovn autside the right-of-way. public pedestrian access easements will need to, be provided or additional right-of-way dedicatt(J to acconnnodate standard sidewalk v,-idths prior to s I ignatureof flit final survty Plat Conditions to this effect have been included belov. 19 1 P a g Page Number: 21 The Coi-nmi� Ion further fint.ls that for those ectioin� of Patton. Nandina, and Stoneridge suurrounding Area, 5. and the section of Nandin a onth of Area 6. shown aith cur°b6cle ;itlewalk ,. an Exception to the Street Standards i� required not to install standard parkrow pla:ntrng strips and no such Exception has bten requested here The C0111:nurss on Concludes that no Exception is nuerited and these sections. s. shouuld be installed 1xith standard parkroix plantiiug strips or Exceptions requested anc.l jiwii-ied as bail of the Final plan application 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. 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 applications. Additionally, each of the proposed multi -family units do include an additional 8% recreational space (porches/patios). Overall, the proposal complies with the open space provisions noted in Chapter 18.4.4.070. The applicants contend the planning and dedication of these areas are critical to the subdivision's residents, neighbors and community as they provide for both natural preservation and physical recreational opportunities for pedestrian walking, active hiking, wading in creek, bird watching and for bicycling once the future extension of the Bear Creek Greenway is realized. AMC 18.5.2.050 Site Design Review Approval Criteria An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the North Mountain Zone 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). Unless previously granted an exception at the time of the original Kestrel Park Subdivision application (PA -T1-2019-00075), the applicants contend the proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the North Mountain Neighborhood District (Chapter 18.3.5). 20 1 P a g; Page Number: 22 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. The proposal does comply with all Site Development and Design Standards included in Chapter 18.4. No exceptions are proposed with the application. 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. All of the site's necessary utilities extend to the subject property from the various public utility easements and street rights -of way surrounding the site. Existing public utilities with capacity to service the proposed housing units have been designed and installed during the construction of the abutting streets and alleys. The attached preliminary Civil Plans illustrates the various utilities and their extension to the proposed units. The project's Civil Engineer has communicated with City staff to insure the subject infrastructure needs meet City standards and address all capacity requirements. At the time of the Final Plan submittal, as well as the Engineering Departments final sign -off of the street construction drawings, the plans will be further refined and formalized. Water: The property is currently served by eight -inch water mains that will be able to connect into the proposed layout. The existing water lines extend to and through Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Sewer: The property is currently served by an eight -inch sanitary sewer main extending from Stoneridge Avenue, Nandina Street, and Patton Lane. Electricity: The applicants have met with the Electric Department and discussed the backbone installation of a three-phase system to serve the development. The Electric Department has suggested that the applicant carefully consider the needs for later phases of the development, including such details as accessory units and chargers for electric vehicles, will be provided, up front as addressing these in the initial infrastructure design will be more efficient and less costly than adding them after the fact in a later phase. The applicants indicate that a final electrical distribution will be provided for review with the Final Plan submittal. Urban storm drainage: As with the various utilities, 12" storm drain facilities exist within the adjacent rights-of-way abutting the property which collect urban run-off and transfer it down to a 12" main in Kestrel Parkway and out to the subdivision's storm water collection basin within the recently constructed in the Bear Creek open space area. 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. 211Pa g; Page Number: 23 No exceptions are proposed with this proposal. AMC 18.3.5.030 C. Site Plan and Architectural Review 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. The proposal's various submittals illustrate conformance with the general design requirements as spelled out and illustrated within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Kestrel Park Subdivision, a three - phased subdivision, is methodically developing as envisioned by the North Mountain Neighborhood Master Plan, including density (as demonstrated on Page 6), transportation (as demonstrated on the site plan and preliminary plat), building design and building orientation (as illustrated in the site plan and architectural building elevations). 2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. As noted in the response above, the proposal complies with the design requirements in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. At the time of individual building permit applications, verification of such requirements by City staff will occur. AMC 18.5.7.040 B. Tree Removal Permit. 2. Tree that is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. The subject multi -trunk Cherry Tree is not a hazard, but does lay within the footprint of the proposed building in Area #7 and is to be removed. The tree is not native or a significant specimen and is a volunteer tree. Removal of the tree is consistent with the Land Use Ordinance where trees are permitted to be removed if they pose a loss in permitted density. Retaining the subject tree would cause the loss removal of possibly four multi -family apartment units which are already at a minimum size. Further, the site's urbanization near the tree, including planned grade changes and changes in soil and hydrological conditions would cause the tree to imminently die. 22 1 P a g; Page Number: 24 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. 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. 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. 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. As noted above, the subject multi -trunk Cherry Tree lays within the footprint of the proposed building in Area #7 and should be removed. The tree is not native or a significant specimen and is a volunteer. Retaining the subject tree would cause the loss removal of possibly four multi -family apartment units which are already at a minimum size (400 sq. ft.). 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. As illustrated with the Landscape Plan, roughly 29 trees are to be planted within Area 7, some of which will be planted in the near vicinity of the subject tree. 23 1 P a g; Page Number: 25 III. SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS/PHOTOS: Einlairged Vadnfty Mia p—ddeuitifiesAcliar-entStii-ucturesw/dn 160� 24 1 P a g Page Number: 26 Mountain Meadows Drive — Looking North towards Patton Lane Looking South — at Mountain Meadows Drive / Patton Lane 251 P a g; Page Number: 27 Nandina Street — Looking East Looking East at North Property Line — Area 5 and future alley 26 1 P a g; Page Number: 28 Looking North — from end of Nandina Street (Area 6) Mariposa Court — Looking Southeast (Area 7) 27 1 P a g; Page Number: 29 Looking North (R) and South (L) — from Mariposa Court (alley adjacent to Area 7) Looking West from end of Nandina Street 281 P a g; Page Number: 30 Looking West — from end of Nandina Street 29 1 P a g; Page Number: 31 TREL PARX, PHASE 3" f.d„ iract "BAreas 4, 5, 6 4.w. 7 ADDENDUM THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND FOR TAYLORED ELEMENTS 1679 JACKSON RD, ASHLAND, OR 97520 r — Subject Site� "I r a u (approximate area within approved Kestrel Park ,!r"I✓G�, ,il rairorinrynr i, � � l 1 Subdivision) Lire////////////////////////////////////////////////////% Vo NIS-�i w �1 N1Pu1-C" r 6 !/fL✓ fAFfF{/Fl/lNlrtl' VO hHS, NIS-fdF Bear Creek . NI M -R 17.5 g g,.125 G 25 Mile North Mountain Zoning Map NOVEMBER 15TH, 2024 Page Number: 32 L PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance: The proposal submitted on November 1st, 2024, for a Performance Standards Option Subdivision, Site Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit to create 15 lots within the Kestrel Park Subdivision within the North Mountain Park Neighborhood Master Plan area also includes an addendum to that application for a Variance for driveway width. The applicant's addendum request for a Variance to driveway width is based on multiple factors relating to the site's steep grade, practicality, neighborhood precedence, driveway separation standards and discrepancies between the City's Engineering Standards and the City's Land Use Ordinance, specifically, the North Mountain Neighborhood District, Chapter 18.3.5.100.A.7. Note: for clarity, the "width " referenced herein is NOT the driveway's parking surface area, but the width of the driveway's opening between the street and sidewalk. The City's Engineering Department minimum width standard for a driveway off of a public street cannot be less than 12' where as the North Mountain Neighborhood Standards it is no greater than 9'. The original application, submitted November 1st, 2024, illustrated driveways to be 9' in width but after initial staff review, the discrepancies between the two codes was noted. The applicants contend this is an unusual circumstance as whatever the applicant proposes would require a Variance to either the City's street standards or land use ordinance. Further compounding the request for a Variance is the driveway separation standard of 24' (24' between driveways) due to the fact that as two adjacent driveways expand to the 12' Engineering standard, the width between is reduced to less than 24'. In order to address the conflicting driveway standards as noted, including the City's Engineering street standards, the applicants have revised the site plan drawings to illustrate a "single" curb cut of 18' in width which will serve "two" attached units. The proposed 18' driveway width allows users to access their side of the driveway without interfering with the other unit's parking area space as illustrated on site plans. The request pertains to the driveways between Lots 32/33, 45/46 and 41/42 as illustrated on the Site Plan Addendum. II. PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT — ADDENDUM FOR DRIVEWAY VARIANCE: The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the requirements and procedures outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) pertaining to Chapter 18.5.5, Variances. For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline" form with the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings offact are complete. Page Number: 33 AMC 18.5.5 Variance Approval Criteria 18.5.5.010 Purpose: Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Land Use Ordinance ("this ordinance") may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, a Variance may be granted as provided in this chapter. 18.5.5.050 A. Variance Criteria: 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. The proposed Variance is necessary for a number of reasons, one specifically being the land use code for the North Mountain District is inconsistent with the City's street standards. Based on filed observations of similar driveway circumstances within the North Mountain area, none of the driveways within the North Mountain area meet the North Mountain District's driveway standards, but do meet the City's street standards. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. The applicant's contend variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site as the 18' driveway opening is "typical" for single family homes throughout Ashland (and often found throughout the North Mountain Area), but in this case the 18' width dimension is serving two abutting single-family homes. Although not ideal from a vehicular maneuvering perspective, the 18' driveway width at the street and the widening of the driveway between the sidewalk and the house(s), allows for users to access the garage or parking space without conflict as illustrated on site plans. 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. The applicants contend 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 as a single 18' driveway width is superior than two independent 12' driveways (totaling 24') for a couple of reasons: First, vehicular maneuvering in and out of the property is more accommodating with an 18' opening compared to a 12' opening, especially when an adjacent vehicle is already parked within the driveway. A 12' driveway opening accommodating multiple side by side 8' + wide vehicles (mirror to mirror) and maneuvering in and out of the driveway is not practical and often causes conflicts between vehicles or damage to the plant strip's landscaping or city curbs. Second, Page Number: 34 two independent 12' driveways consume not only more on street parking and planting strip landscaping compared to a single 18' driveway, but also creates more driveway encumbrances for pedestrians to maneuver. 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. The need for the Variance is not self-imposed by the applicants as there is a conflict with City codes and there are multiple practical difficulties when applying the standard while serving attached dwellings as it relates to vehicle maneuvering, excessive cut and retaining walls, and damage to public infrastructure and landscaping. Page Number: 35 2 Q J r Q J 0 Page Number: 36 y O MOO � G � S II — 5 I mill g 1p y� I W,WWU nN �e„ g.� � m yIN °v°, w NXyUjN p Qp�@�.§a o P55P r Ohm and a III ti "yo ti I zx� K I oa g Q 0 °a 2 Q J r Q J 0 Page Number: 36 y O MOO � G � S II — 5 I mill g 1p y� I W,WWU nN �e„ g.� � m yIN °v°, w NXyUjN p Qp�@�.§a w r Ohm and a m gaoa °w 2 Q J r Q J 0 Page Number: 36 U N y� I W,WWU nN �e„ g.� � m yIN °v°, w NXyUjN p Qp�@�.§a w r Ohm and a m gaoa °w wp K I oa g Q °a 2 Q J r Q J 0 Page Number: 36 S?I`ViSNMOG VZOVSL J@qw@AON L NVd ITIS sluawal] pajolAel 13 I H S :JOUMO/jU811D NEI 0. ,6 A-) -0 C) 0 .0 0 0 200 Cz . - d z �� z 0-0. L� Q 'wA0<4 oz LU � C) :, � :E z Qwm, w- ,HOZ < <Z Z Q<DD III ME CL (1) M, Page Number: 37 z w L o co w 'A Z u_ Ali Z 6 0 0 2� 0 An. v ow -w0 00 Q wc <U c) ) c) oo2 10 w Q D z .10 < Z , LU z 0 w z , w Q D . An T: M D > z OZ An An P 01 .01 D D III ME CL (1) M, Page Number: 37 VZOVSL J@qw@AON NV�d IiIS sJuawal] pajolAel 13 I H s :JOUMO/jU811D NEI 0 0. Cj 6 -0 vs o 00 0 0 'o, -T 00 0 > 0 00 1 0 < -0 C) < D Z Z' o > 0 D LU Q 0 0 an 0 D z wp,,w7 LU 0 D T: D M-..� z oz fle < o Lo Cie L 0 D D - < D D JU IIIIIIIJIUMM, 0 iii '�, L o -- ---- ----- 0 / ' r � ''' m / illill��l. � O I 0 0 LU Cl - LU ... .. .. .... ..... ... .. LU 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 M Ln 'o LU Cie ES D Page Number: 38 ION z :E o 2 I Page Number: 39 S�lViSN/V\00 VZOZ'SL J@qWE)AON sluawal] pajolAel IBM 13 I H S 17 V]�V :JOUMO/jU811D ION z :E o 2 I Page Number: 39 V) Ui U < V) \ " < V) z 3� 0 LU V, ION z :E o 2 I Page Number: 39 PATTON LN. �Uo� M V) LU Cie U < (D V) Cie < V) 6 0 LU C) I Page Number: 40 VZOVJ@qw@A0N sluawalSL ] pajolAel I H s 17 V]�V :j@UMo/jU@ljD PATTON LN. �Uo� M V) LU Cie U < (D V) Cie < V) 6 0 LU C) I Page Number: 40 o�do [� S?lViSNMOG VZOZ'SLaagw@AON E s vl�v sluawal3 paaolAel��h�i�iilli pr L 3 3 H S :aaunn0/juai�� I -�----------.IJS V NIQN V N --- ----- ONlallfl8 I /;,,,,,;,;,;i HDbOd I 3OV?JVO 1N]WIAVd I No I aN3O3l ------�------------i--Ind-------------- -3fid---------t8 ` I I i � III I S -L 0-Ot 0-£t 0-11, I I ''0-S t J 0 S t rTl N- ''0 \ ��� -_ATL £ll �.I I W I I (i7a as) d s oo s7oa I I 30Vd]AOD SnOlA ]dWI I 7'OL8£ V]dv iol 1V101 £'7L9 :3OVdS 431VIH 'S NMOa 97101 (%£8'L'd]AO SnOl �-----o —o —1- 90V213�OO Sf101A213d WI 'd'V]dv iol 1V101 'fS'� £'7l900'9£8£ :9OVdS 431VIH 'S NMOa i 97101 Tt t-8 0-Ot 0-,Ot (%6£'99)'d'S 8'9t£l I 30Vd]AOD SnOlAA]dWI 9'90[7 :V]dv iol 1V101 Td £89 9OVdS 431VIH 'S NMO(l 77101 1 i I%7£ l7) d S S £88 IOYdIAOD SnOlA ]dWI ITO-8 'd'S 9'9801 :V]dv iol 1V101 897 :3OVdS 431VIH 'S NMOa �3 doad I I :£7 iol I (%£9'LS)'d'S 00'8tOl 30Vd]AOD SnOlA ]dWI d'S7'[OS£:V]dviol lVl01 ���� ♦ I I T} Z' tSL 9OVdS 431VIH'S NMOa :17101 ♦� :IOVAIAO0 SnOlA ]dWI ♦♦♦♦ �\ 'd'S 7'8£9£ :V]dv iol 1V101 ♦ T} L* [9Z 9OVdS 431VIH 'S NMOa 09 017 06 OZ O L �\ �� 710, � I 1 I 9 :1NnOD llNn - S VI V � j 0-Ol = t 9lVOS N S]�DV 6t'0 SMiSNM04 - S `dI2lV L Page Number: 41 odo 9 s�idlsdn VZOVSL aagw@AON IBM s vl�v sluawa13 paaolAel L 3 3 H S :aaunn0/ju@IID _ —— — — — — —— 'ZS — —— ----- — VNIQNVN eNlallna HDbOd 3OV?JVO 1N3W3AVd IaN3O3l ♦♦ ------------i-----.0-.8 ------<? ------ I I I V I I I I S -L I 0-Ot 0-£t I I I I I X11 1 £1 I I W 17711 vl—I C? �76-97/i I I I I O I i A I I I T^ Vl I 0-0 t l S£ t (%78'lS)'d'S00'5701 I �30V213AODSf101A213d WI O I I 'd'S 7'OL8£ :V321V lol lVlol I T t -Z I '}'s Z'Zgq t 9DVdS a31V3H 'S dfl :97 fol I "' I 90V213�0� SnOIA13d WI 'd'S 00'9£8£ V321V lol Mol 7 '}'s 1'199 t 9DVdS a31V3H 'S dfl „0-�O t ,0-,O t I 97 1o1 I ;9 1[ (%6£'99) 'J 'S �oj I � SnOI WI f101 *90 ]dv Ivi S'90t7 �V321V lol Mol IV li T} S't t£t 9DVdS a31V3H'S do K7£'17)'d'S 9'£88 771o1 90VdIAOD SnOIAA]dWI 'd'S 9'9801 V321V lol Mol '}'s 897 :3DVdS a31V3£7101 _ o (%£9'L9) 'd'S 00'8101 SnOIAA]d WI 'Sl 9DVdS a31V3H 1710o1 (%10'L9)'d'S£'L101 `�`♦ ♦ ♦ 30V213�0� SnOIA13d WI ♦� 'd'S 7'8£9£ �V321V lol Mol ♦♦ �` '}'s 7111:3DVdS a31V3H'S do 05 0� 06 OZ .O L \ 71ol � I I I 9 �1Nf10� llNfl - S V321V j 0-�OL = ''1 9lVDS L N S]�DV6'V*0 - smisdn- s vii Page Number: 42 o do 1118uwu L S?llb1SNM04 VZOZ'SL aagw@AON 9 b3?Jb sluawa13 paaolAel 13 I H S :aaunnp/ju811D I z I/ I I I I I Vw I I I =� ti I twdwo� I H 1 J 0 -'OL .dV:)10 NVH 1 � I I 1I I 00 I I (Y) O I �l i EN RWS�RE ,OO I /.. ��/ '9 .11•� r�\ U \ o� I o I O I N I U I I 1 I I d 'l r w w ,- w co , M O s, I I I / 1 u � o � v m mCie � N N h h Q Z Z N w N w N w w N m ID N Z V P ¢¢ P N O N m "' I- u_ w w V ON v m m m¢ ¢¢ m¢ w N N N N O O O w w>>m> m> INj �°�'�m �� �� Imi o VQ¢ �w,.i QO QO QO QO / ^ M w m m m 00 m m p p �' ¢ O ' D I- D I- D o o Q v p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V o 20 D O 20 20 Z w wQaOZrZ¢ h¢ DD0 N =¢ >h Zh uOr mr pr pr pr p LJ Z :E<=� 0N 01W ~mr( � O� Q a� �0 00 O O O ¢. . . w Page Number: 43 o do 1118uwu 8 s�idlsdn VZOZ'S L aagWE)AON 9 b3?Jb sluawa13 paaolAel 13 3 H S :aaunnp/ju811D Page Number: 44 I I I ti� rn o I Tt t-,91 I I I i I I� I I II I II Ui J i iO I i I 11 J 1 I I co I 11 I I I \ d \ I I I I I I I I I I � I I M _ I I I I J ,- I I ______- - I I /p 1 D v m m o Q r r r o N N h h N N N N Z Z P m 16 w N m Q Q m m h P h m Vii. VJ w m N`O NOM LL LL NN O V W V r Q0 Q 0 Q0 Q 0 P V O O N Q u_ N m Q V Q V N>w Q V N>w Q V N>w h m w � QO OQ . u DO DO DO ra rm O Da w W z Z 0oo 00„-.o wQOw �mxQ zzQw>inozcn - aN>w a o 2 O � E»O p������o1 :E aN O V m m m v d ~ a a 0 0Z u. 0 0 Z a» 22 O O O Page Number: 44 o do rrr8uwu 6 S?llb1SNM04 VZOZ'SL aagw@AON L b' M sluawa13 paaolAel 13 3 H S :aaunn0/ju811D Page Number: 45 0140 s�ivisdn VZOVSL J@qw@AON 0 L z vl�v sluawal] pajolAel AIHS :JOUMO/jU811D In E I o ------_TT --------------------------- vs0diNVIN Lr) Lid LU o LU c� c� CL. 0 o CY) Lij < Lij 77 L'�. , � N LU z ,6 , 0000 2 -, U 0 U ('4 Mil < 0 Q --o o D z c) Q o (5 D > z z 0 1 D aw0 z Z Zen wm m= > 0D D D2 D q 2 0 I < z z D D o ------_TT --------------------------- vs0diNVIN 1-101 and Lr) Lid LU o LU c� 1-101 and Page Number: 46 Lr) o LU c� c� CL. o CY) Lij < Lij 77 o I o o > w p o ('4 0 o LU V aw0 aw0 Z in in D D2 D q Page Number: 46 M LU LU o W N F- N � V 0 ww s � J Q Q 1-5 F o W W x N Wzo 0 0 0 Page Number: 47 6Z 10 ZVZOZ'0£ S�OIOJ �01�31X3 aagopo 13 3 H S paao�Aeluawa auMo/juaijD 61 Y wm II�IIII )11 NDIS30 NNtlW30N11 (INV 'G ti a 0 R C 2 �} 2 F� o o E sU _ —. T7 b -arm t'o'y' R 3 J 2 2 2 2 ti+Y E E E E tJ 'U VV aJ co w Zo so w u CY U w w v 0 U) wa LA t Sy r u a h � r c r r_ L Page Number: 48 M n E Y wm II�IIII )11 NDIS30 NNtlW30N11 (INV 'G ti a 0 R C 2 �} 2 F� o o E sU _ —. T7 b -arm t'o'y' R 3 J 2 2 2 2 ti+Y E E E E tJ 'U VV aJ co w Zo so w u CY U w w v 0 U) wa LA t Sy r u a h � r c r r_ L Page Number: 48 6Z 30 133HS M31/1d3AO/IVI81V ££ Z£ 5101 b t/3at/ VZOZ'O£ aagop0 paao14elu aUMO/IuallD Page Number: 49 6z io �j SMIIA I IID]dSd3d VZOZ '0£ aagopo P )11 NDIS30 NNVV43ONI1 (INV vv ££-Z£ 5101- b vlav sluawa13 paaojAel :aaunnp/juallJ ii Aft � 1 3 3 H S Page Number: 50 6Z 30 13 3 H S SNOIIVAI13 ££-Z£ 5101- b vlav VZOZ '0£ aagop0 sluawa13 paao14el :aaUMO/IuallD IIIIIJI]w Page Number: 51 6Z 30 9 133HS M31/1d3AO/IVI81V bb £b 5101 S t/3at/ VZOZIOC aago��0 paao14elu aUMO/IuallD Page Number: 52 6Z 30 L SMIIA 1111J3dSd3d bb-£b 5101- S vlav VZOZ 'O£ aagop0 sluawa13 ]ll N91$30 NNViNKNIl 0NV M 13 3 H SpaaojAel:aaunn0/juallJ Page Number: 53 6Z 30 g 13 3 H S SNOIIVAI13 bb -£b 5101- S vlav VZOZIOC aago��0 sJuawa13 paao14el :aaUMO/IuallD IIIIIJIJAM 9ll N91330 NNtlW34NIl ONV Page Number: 54 6Z 10 6 S3/111J3dSd3d' IV181V Sb 101- S vlav VZOZ'O£aago��0 SIUE)Wa13 )11 N9153a NNVV430N11 M paaojAel :aaunn0/juallJ 13 3 H S Page Number: 55 6Z 30 OL6 I 133HS SNOIIVAI13 Sb 101 St/3at/ VZOZIOC aago��0 paao14elU aUMO/IuallD Page Number: 56 6z io SMIIA 1111J3dSd3d Ob 101- S vlav VZOZ 'O£ aagop0 sluawa13 1111111iiiijim" )11 N91S30 NNVV43GN11 (INV M paaojAel :aaunn0/juallJ 13 3 H S Page Number: 57 6Z 10 Z L 13 3 H S SNOIIVAIII ov 101 - s vlav VZOZ IOC JE)qopo sluawal] pajo 14el :j a UMO/I U @.I ID IIIIIJIJAM, Page Number: 58 INS 1! 1011, I ... ..... Is Page Number: 58 10 £I. M31/1d3AO/IV181V VZOZ'O£ aagopo Zb 6b 5101 S t/3�t/ paao14elu aUMO/Iua.ID 133HS Page Number: 59 6Z 10 �j VV SM31A IAI1J3dSd3d ZV-Lb 5101- S vlav VZOZ 10£ aagop0 sluawa13 111 N91S30 NNtlW30NI1 NNV ,, paaojAel :aaunn0/jualjD 13 3 H S Page Number: 60 6Z 30 LI - 13 3 H S SNOIlVAIl3 ZV-Lb 5101- S V]dv VZOZ 10£ aago��0 sluawa13 paao14el :aaUMO/Iu8.ID /lipp; o f • f%1r%li/�i/%//p%%%Op/,i/%,i i�G//lG!ifi/t%�r; ,//o/�/t�/%/%;%lG%�i %/%�/p�/r„ %r%Gr lG�%OplGy%/�/%/ji��j�G'i/ii,%�i%%/ ; i: • i//t�,,l,'(///9i%f�/i,>,, io00o�p�Gi%p%Gip%op>„%i%lllG//�%lDp; MINIMUM 00% alOGGa%ll %/op%i!G%/i !/pl!% /!I%c / ' ,i / bio%%!o��p%0✓/�f��%� rrG!/ji/,, /��/iaio0pG0i/,/�, ,�FI � OpG,%l0!ooO,pDG/OGpOpiGs ��/r/// • ,f/%o%/%��!..:..: %%%�0!!/ri l ,� r 00/'J!�OG%//%i%�l'0/�1/l%%r ��/ /��lr M,// 'M %Gp%;Gil/%%Gil Gf%>i�i0%%%/% 'v pp//��o � o i / �G66/�, roe%��l �. /I G%G%G�%✓/D%%i///6G.%f ,1�.. ,/o ��I f%Gli li/OGpOl/i /D l r,l 1p000p%j%orGGi/G%%% r iG/%/ r, / 311 ./p,/0%6r%%///%0/%l0 /i�o/Goo//�/pGr /� � /i i.✓ ,, G� o/c '�;%/%�'lirl m!�f/DD/%/ Opp/il� /�� �/�lj/,,� G%Gig//G/%i%l i ✓ i/, %�1 r/%r%% j%ii � dmwww�•rvma . • i pry//�i�iG r i!ir r I % �%yti/��p/%��,. ..� .......:......:......__ n // ('%/�%/� �/'!/ � • '� iii///I oil III �`I r/ 1/fJ IIII I • I I I fl,/i J'/1/irj��f/� ,li „/!;iiia ai „ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ril r,'%J/%r%i/,n1 /ilii✓%l�%%i%�%i% y l/%fi/%///� „n•„n�,,n• , !/,/i0//p'/' 'oil/rl�!l2 >//��G1�1f�� i%%tel l% /, r ;✓ /; /� / lid%%9%' >i'i✓y,//ri�'� '�u���; (1�%ijJiy? ��;'%ii%%%r/J �;�� '%ii%�f"i/i ooh% IT SM IIioo//7�GG%/i G....:,� �' ✓lir) i.. (jam%�%;�lpjj%�'%///moi% 'p/i//eap�% Page Number: 61 6Z 30 6I MllAdIAO/IVI81V VZOZIOC aago��0 6£'8'8£'L£ 5101 9 t/38t/ paaojAelu aunnp/juallJ 13 3 H S Page Number: 62 6Z 3o LI L SMIIA 1111J3dSd3d 6£'8 8£ L£ 101- 9 V18V VZOZ 0£jsluaago��0 13 IIIIIIIJIJAM ill N91S30 NNtlW30Nll ONV M13 paaol�el:aaunn0/�uall� 3 H S Page Number: 63 6Z 30 6 I - L 133HS SN011VAII3 L£5101 9t/3at/ VZOZ 10£ aago��0 paaojAej: aunnlp/juallD 711 NO A NNtlW30NI14NV Page Number: 64 6Z 30 6 I - L 133HS SN011VAII3 8£5101 9t/3at/ VZOZ 10£ aago��0 uawapaaojAej: aunnlp/juallD 711 NO A NNtlW30NI14NV Page Number: 65 6Z 30 O1SN011VAII3 133HS 6£ 101 9 t/3at/ VZOZ'0£aago��0 paaojAelu aunnp/juallJ 711 NO A NNtlW30NI14NV Page Number: 66 6Z 30 L% MllAdIAO/IVI81V VZOZIOC aago��0 sluawa13 V S£ 101- L vlav paaojAel :aaunn0/juallJ 13 3 H S Page Number: 67 6Z 10 Z Z 13 3 H S SMIIA 1111J3dSd3d S£ 101- L vlav VZOZ 'O£ aagop0 sluawa13 paaojAel :aaunn0/juallJ 111111iiijimi, )11 NDIS30 NNVNIGNIl (INV W` Page Number: 68 £Z 133HS SNOIIVAI13 S£ 101 L t/3�t/ VZOZ '0£ aagopo paaolAelu OUMO/juallJ Page Number: 69 6Z 30 vvv6Z Z M31/1d3AO/IVI81V VZOZ '0£ aagopo sluawa13 IIIJIJAM, V b£ 5101- L vlav paao14el :aaunn0/IuallD 13 3 H S Page Number: 70 6Z 30 6 Z �+ 13 3 H S SMIIA 1111J3dSd3d b£ 101- L vlav VZOZ 'O£ aagopo sluawa13 paaojAel :aaunn0/juallJ )11 NDIS30 NNVNIGNIl (INV W` Page Number: 71 6Z 30 6% V 133HS SNOIIVAI13 b£ 101 L t13at1 VZOZIOC aagopo paaolAelU aumo/juall� IM Page Number: 72 IM r/' rr'�f, I r i • ill/i /�Ga� � • �/�J/i i ����INiICI��a��A�l i� I _ lyd ����v�omimuii�tliul� �� Page Number: 72 6Z 10 L% V MllAdIAO/IVI81V 9£ 101- L t lav VZOZ'O£ aagopo sluawal3 711 N9 SIO NNVW30NI1 M M13 paaojAel :aaunn0/juallJ 3 H S Page Number: 73 6z io 8 z �+ SMIIA 1111J3dSd3d 9£ 101- L vlav VZOZ 'O£ aago��0 sluawa13 111111iijism" 711 N9 S30 NNtlW30NIl ONV M paaojAel :aaunn0/juallJ 13 3 H S Page Number: 74 6Z 30 6 % �+ 133HS SN011VAII3 9£ 101 L t/3at/ VZOZ'0£ aag0��0 paa0jAelu @UM0/juallJ Page Number: 75 u VIII r`, /////////O%%//%t, ham ME IV In 11111MR, Vql % AMINO f r Irj 1 � • i % i, r / m��i �III��IIIII�IIIII�II��U WB 9 / ; MIR ME f � r P o «rraio . ���/% AM %%gn% iqp 4111 • miss %illi , // /f %,, 111 �11M w, u�[ �f���l�WWWOIWOIWNU IOWOUOWOWOWOW / ' V.. ��� I lip IRIMME J11 f �pIIII Page Number: 75 bZOZ'S6 aago�30 }no l Sl u a w a l3 it iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.... Z£- 6£Slol-bvlav NVId I�II�F(f l I 13 3 H S paaojAel :aaunno/juaij� Page Number: 76 Z NVId bZOZ'S6 aagol 30 }no l Sl u a w a l3 it iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.. L£-££ 5101- S vlav p l��k (aria 13 3 H S paaojAel :aaunn0/juaij� SNER i I-- 7 LU CL O J LU LU C) W J J so T Q W Q A PIQ Page Number: 77 a W Z U (Z Z a � U 3 W Zm0 > zo cn N 0= 0 W 30> W 3 = m Q O U J J 0 Q aC G O m D 0 '^ V N '^ V H ZD wz ZD W ZZi— Z Ord Zu-)U W moa I-- 7 LU CL O J LU LU C) W J J so T Q W Q A PIQ Page Number: 77 #gz%Eagpo Nyd :� �� \ R®®M] Efo#gm-zgav IHS pe)w& 2u� )8£ L----------- ® — �R7TTo N JN � y z e J a w / / �\ \ 52/D \ \\ j§ 0\ �0 U� \W \� ":< \0 ;t ® wr® \zzr \ z0 Z�U /\ 2G< � Page Number: a , ( d .. z � ) / coj 1 F- F- Z j K K G y z e J a w / / �\ \ 52/D \ \\ j§ 0\ �0 U� \W \� ":< \0 ;t ® wr® \zzr \ z0 Z�U /\ 2G< � Page Number: a Page Number: 79 xp i w�mi x b'4 UroN U.tl b Y b'449'� ~ � addr Z O ��� M.3 bn9 N'�w!vY.7 /t .3�d0 3oJ3NJ � wQ Z z � > w � E z <dy a t� v � F X w w w s: a�Na w�,roN _ - o 00 ., A� t1O�I (r Of °a7, CSF bb 1 0. ®k �o ©o f I J z 0 m (l1 z Z W o o = O 00 0 zi co Z Zwdpzo —do� m Lli (nW 37 �. V) L>11 O � C1/ w M + 3 LL w/ \ Id T Q nv"y z N 0 O w s �� I E �ZO�Z % �t� W XUO O U J WWiiWWw u w QI! U � LIJ ro _ t r III �I I i II I I I I I z ° omm xWw°mhrrp e of wa zp� qq �ry am els 'w =o° m Waw3Mp C p O Z �3Q W _ eoz s§ ppm' 29 g1Jvp4 ¢x�=om rvo`H'o r;��sa W= ex n°cti m° n�'� m¢w mo _ao _c. _czo° _x° _aza _°r �u¢ aE4 �1Ym¢4 Page Number: 79 r N _ M� _ Z O p�W , _ _ p E Z�2 z aW m w a &m m - ra ¢ S YF o � � o w o o Q � mm rz w Q w oa 3i mo _ _s ` C7 w x�W Oo ® Y v 6 Epm m � (DOSS S O OOH O 9 e@ 5 z m x Nr J _W oa f Oaa , Zp`a o ai a Zz 1pr Zp i 02, zW zQmQ O= zp4 ky �e I w WQ J 04 W — � zo z �_ T w - 1I z Za 1I^ O 0 W n � P po, a m , � M 0 oW _ _ sa Wor ap � E r-- z � � ,� z a �� a to m hl F ao �— F z° �� Z oz v F z� w ❑m Q o ❑ Eg o N K o z� U zp � U za M � FO zv ha a Page Number: 80 Page Number: 81 a Z � 2 I g o s�s d aj 2 o� o Z = 2 3�2 Z QZ L� E m^ p H OsM0 >z Z O YE Z ;Z &i Z o E �> O Z d d d dhZ Q F O¢ U Q O a� o� o� a¢O s U U U RZ U j _ z Oz _ _ _ O �O �? 0 ` a ow Z zQ D _ 2 Z z z i2 i�; V, ou O O OO K Ory ❑l ❑l ❑p K Q K O � t Page Number: 81 a �Z Z � 2 I g o s�s d aj 2 o Z = 2 Z QZ L� H � >z Z O YE aQ m Zz o E �> O Q 2 O F O¢ U Q ~ U s Page Number: 81 w m� Z W — 0Ot M. a Z o ✓J -!S y Uti \ Oz m kw v a � N d �1 d _ o m v m i \\� U I II I II II I II I u I Illi II II u �� m II I wu °I II of II pi II 1 II I II lQ II � II u u II z u m _ II o � II ' II 2 w m� Z W — 0Ot M. a Z o ✓J -!S y Uti \ Oz m kw v a � N d �1 d _ o m v m i \\� w r\\ � 1 c \ 11 wg• 1 g 1 ao-o-o-r� : 4 \ \ � z 1 rll w 1 \1 - 0 � \ 1 2 m WW Page Number: 82 WR b q �W � O tip1 O � n u � u u I n n J I rc� z Iv u I I II J �I II „I o nB y r s In o na+lr s�„ i II o na r on3 MCSIX3 N>LVW v" p- � 11 .9N/i5/X3 tQ[VW 31 II II RW v I R 3 I w 1 0 ry `l I 111 I I 2 r 5 I ZIP I Lx 6 1 I I and� W I � I 2 I N I I I I E I I I I£BCI 3J�81 C 5 BC 3M9 \.... � p 10. b9+O£ SJR® ¢ 10 69*O£ SJ98. I � I nI - w w N o£ � as oo Z , O J 0 _o m oa+casoh„M �u p ow as amo Z —Z iu m z i- ^ o z z "^ s - C) w „ „ a� Q I kw �J I o I W I I^ o Ip e W I m i � o m 1 z 1!, e 3am� r m � Z11 eBi.aesees I kw �J I o I W I I^ o Ip e W I m i Page Number: 83 � o m 1 z r z e 3am� r m � ¢ w a a a a S ru - u h II w m 7a n p � ^ II w x I w d n d� u' ti Page Number: 83 I I I I I I Z I U a' a ' Z Q o 00 o' e Z oZ �Qe 4 == QQ o m� E w o— �wwo w Z m o o m o w Z C U s F � w x I^� o rr OU -T - 2 m.. I o 06 m M waQ� I o � Q 'Z i miopi 1 M a J � 2�000p 1 a. li. m rc¢N�v 1 x '�w I I w W 1 ai zo 1 W z 1 � om e t a ' I w n x x � - _�DEWCLK i s p O v _oma a a°o 3NNO11Yd X3 ° az 4 N L S vLU 2 x � re ba aa.o ne as JJJ `mo ev " ry 0 m o _ I I h o 1 Il�m 2m m m ry SII e i � w � � n n y Jt G F o gym' 9Nb'1�N(�Iflb 0 X3 EwPBK \t a G z v o m Eu FP F Irc "' NFe o¢, o ea s3 SCO wvvx 11 r-kaEx+ry � � a m m e m Q a Whh" w aom I I I I I I Page Number: 84 Page Number: 85 O Z E I U W w g�s � / — n a Ow 2 I W } o 2— w bb58tt N1+ x / I 1 O J bs8tt / o I M O O v m T 0 698 6098 /� N fG'<o+o YLS / l DI I \ \ \ h o O loll aJ U` 38 I O I o NJ NU' 36 \ \ MO � o I o �L� O� 2 W l7 J a Q OZ a a a Z m ¢ w O V � F Z O (DQ 3NV7 NO11Vd _ p all a o _ w y � m oF,o m 0 h o m m � o m B m I T +M ■Y ffi Page Number: 85 w I V 0 �g _ o 3 � ^ p U r � m h r m z 0 Ow M E ? o Z w a F Y d � o LO ° OO m m mph / 4 m rc o 150_ � 26 8 e\ hiQ/ Z M 1 \ 0 m � H zv o y t � FYI s6 Ob�0 v -f0£ 3NVl NO11Vd _ m - oa 4 2 e a n n n n I M: U iii 1 o O .7L- 8L<I O ry O � r � m h Q Q Q oi, _ 00-'0 0 � �o �m �w dwea JNJ NIJ39 � ..111 w + � Z h m nAi n n e m m n n n n }. 'W I I +M ■Y ffi wq3� Page Number: 86 I I I I I I Z. I w Z Z OZ a, - w Z o Y= UE U U F� o Q T \ Z� U C5 S z� m \ Page Number: 87 � , I I --3AING 3DOM WMd z _ o I----------- F — I I FI li ; pl I InI,7 = I I I a U. I r L �4z v w X 6 _ F 0 a Z azo U __= o0 o __ o o ° � , I I --3AING 3DOM WMd z _ o I----------- F — I I FI li ; pl I InI,7 = I I I a U. I r L o' 3Nv'3 NNIn — .�.i ,mss✓ / >soJ —��� i�'�s:. 05, l Page Number: 88 �4z v o' 3Nv'3 NNIn — .�.i ,mss✓ / >soJ —��� i�'�s:. 05, l Page Number: 88 Page Number: 89 Z I Q � a o ss g d s z z Zz O w >> w o O N� yE o o = V O �U u R� 3g6P S z�m rQ al 1�� P R R 9 .. — — 0 wt 2 6 I W Q W Q '.. '.. '.. '.. Z '.. '.. '.. Z -' Z — vii '... Z I m � N wt N wt 0 0 m 2 � l m w y > > o 0 0 a 0 0 I I W x Z Z a' Z Z a, ¢ wq3� Page Number: 89 0 R 2 Z z uu11 o / � + w / i Z + w Z = ZF � OZ n n n n r\ n n h $ o0 / o a F x / N x / S o Z z / / a P m —1 /a— m a, Q d Q d m m / / 4 0 R 2 o / � w / i Z / Q h $ o0 Q d Page Number: 90 xw � w,mi x��u 3L 1+0 6 i ~ I p / "b'4UYN UtlbU b"w '� addr � i ���M�➢4n9N"'.'��Y /�� 3oJ3NJ wQ Z l7 Z Z 0 i — O O � 0 2� z < E � a o a o� 5 R X o Z a.. F w w �o S I I rooa. —------------� _1� a rc,rcor _ O Q AFZ� LIJ ZU 0�0w � Co C) M Z Z0 EZ Vi W N O N~ Z J `� T� Q M C \ L 11 O v U_ O pU W// LU p�� W LA P , Page Number: 91 Z I W � g d a s F o > e ¢ v '` O 8p M ON o �d 8a doeo 8p3 a o 3 s apo a° o sr ,qla 0 F¢p ga °4 s 8 �W y dII N`"o Eg " z spy W i go o s 4m2 ak G $ '�S p e3'v G £ tea_ °_ W mao 8? g ak 8 d 5` £ =�8�' S� �` dap 4� H12 R wo 6 x`'92 off, H 2 dad £44 Wo'zz'z" G ° 8012 1,6 os" za � o B g gWO Yy r 88 8 EiY $s i O Oz wW'W �j yq� Zo�'m"a o w IIM a o iii joj Page Number: 92 � � I --- -- -- -- -----I--- -�-- I 3A laG 3DO a wma I I Ill I �yV , i � o 185 i i i Page Number: 93 s z s sog �w sp`z� its 'His sQazW OnrcN 110H a N L_� R 1 i Q - Page Number: 93 ---- 2 - --- ------ -------- I -�-- 2 ,�, I anlao a�o�a wma N -j� I a= z - c K z d O-Ul Z a 0o Y� f, c. i I a I � y � . } 000 000 J / Page Number: 94 2 - �m - 2 a= z - z O-Ul Z a 0o N (DO (D (D (D (D 0 (D (D Page Number: 94 Page Number: a } Page Number: a Page Number: 96 Z. a s ........ , . 0 W I I }} t� 1 ryyi t U { 1r n p On l qj m I R w � a, a ............... ...., r w y Page Number: 96 \\»2, . . . . ... r \ - \�( i .. � Page Number: y . . . . . . . . . �� � . . . . ) . . . . . . . \\»2, . . . . ... r \ - \�( i .. � Page Number: y mu9unN®q Q n,: 3!JO'(I Ha =: 2 O ) ~ ®\\ { � r3 a2 «Q 2&g, 0. - � Q