Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025 - Findings - #PA-Appeal-2025-0020THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-APPEAL-2025-00020 AN APPEAL OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2024-00054 WHICH APPROVED 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: RECITALS: CMK DEVELOPMENT LLC TAYLORED ELEMENTS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDERS. 1) The subject property is tax lot #8600 of Assessor's Map 39-lE-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. 2) The application is an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval for, inter alia, outline plan approval for a PSO subdivision and Site Design Review approval. 3) In accordance with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.1.060.I the City Council's review of a Type-2 Decision is confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record includes the application materials, the Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 10, 2024, and the Planning Commission Findings of Fact dated January 14, 2025. By their reference each is hereby incorporated herein as if set out in full. 4) The relevant approval criteria include Outline Plan at AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3, supplemental approval criteria for the NMNP at AMC 18.3.5.030.C, Site Design Review at AMC 18.5.2.050, Variance at AMC 18.5.5.030, and Tree Removal at AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2. These are set out in full in the Planning Commission Findings referenced above, and for parsimony are not repeated here. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 10, 2024. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to conditions of approval. On January 14, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted findings, conclusions and orders addressing the relevant approval criteria and conditions of approval. 6) Subsequent to the mailing of the Notice of Decision and the Planning Commission's adopted PA-APPEAL-2025-00020 March 4, 2025 Page 1 findings, an appeal was timely filed by Vida Taylor et al. The appeal application included the required form, and a three -page letter listing eight points of appeal signed by Ms. Taylor and nine others. a. The appeal application also included a four -page letter titled "Testimony on Kestrel Park Phase IIII Site Development" which is a near identical letter to what was previously submitted by Mr. Kinsinger on December 5th and again on February 18th. The majority of the Kinsinger letter raises concerns that had to do with "Area 7" which was removed from consideration. The other issues raised in the Kinsinger letter overlap entirely with the eight issues raised in the Taylor letter including street design standards, alley access, lot coverage and building design. 7) The eight assignments of error for the appeal are summarized below: a. That the standards provided at AMC 18.3.5.030.0 are not met. This section of code is the "Supplemental Approval Criteria" for the North Mountain Neighborhood plan. The appellant specifically cites density, building design, building orientation, and concerns about increased traffic. b. That the standards provided at AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 are not met. This section of code is specific to the design requirements of alleys for the North Mountain Neighborhood. The appellant raises concerns with the number of units taking vehicular access from an extension of existing alleys. c. The third appeal issue restates the concern that the standards provided at AMC 18.3.5.030.0 are not met. The appellant then specifically cites concerns with the multifamily development building design, and parking being `Infront of the buildings. d. That the standard provided at AMC 18.3.9.040 are not met. This section address "Adequate key City facilities" and the appellant raises concerns with police and fire protection, and adequate transportation. e. That the standards provided at AMC 18.5.2.050.0 are not met. This section addresses compliance with Chapter 18.4. The appellant then specifically cites concerns regarding density, traffic, and evacuation. f. That the standards provided at AMC 18.3.5.100.A are not met. This section address "Site Development and Design Standards for `Housing' for the North Mountain Neighborhood. The appellant then specifically cites building orientation, building design, parking, and fire protection. g. That the standards provided at AMC 18.4.4.070 are not met. This section addresses the required open space. The appellant then specifically cites concerns regarding lot -coverage, building design, views, and generally the development of multi -family housing. h. The eighth appeal issue does not include a code citation but raises concerns with fire safety and evacuation. PA-APPEAL-2025-00020 March 4, 2025 Page 2 8) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 4, 2025. Testimony was received from staff, the appellant, and the applicant. 9) The City Council notes that the appeal process is limited to evaluating whether substantial evidence in the record supports the Commission's decision and whether any legal errors were made. The City Council determined that there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the proposal complies with the applicable approval criteria, including zoning, density, site design, and infrastructure requirements established in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. 10) The City Council considered each of the eight issues raised on appeal and found that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission decision approving the application. 11) The City Council deliberated and voted (5-1) in favor of the following motion: "To affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and reject the appeal for the reasons that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission's decision, that the Planning Commission did not commit any errors of law, and to adopt the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact as the City Council's own." Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds and concludes as follows: DECISION Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the City Council affirms the decision of the Planning Commission and rejects the appeal for the reasons that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council finds that the Planning Commission did not commit any errors of law, and to adopts the Planning Commission's January 14, 2025 Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as the City Council's own. �� A", 3) zs City Codncil Approval Date PA-APPEAL-2025-00020 March 4, 2025 Page 3