The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-03-11 Planning PACKET Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 11, 2025 Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports III.CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approval of Minutes a.January 28, 2025 Study Session b.February 11, 2025 Regular Meeting IV.PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by March 11, 2025, to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/98495270459 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2024-00010, 300 Clay Street VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00053 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 231 Granite Street PROPERTY OWNERS: Stephanie & Bryan DeBoer APPLICANTS: Carlos Delgado Architect DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental (P&E) Constraints permit to construct a new single-family dwelling in steep slopes greater than 25% within the hillside overlay area, including exceptions to the hillside design standards. The proposal includes a Type 2 variance due to the proposed driveway grade exceeding 18%. The applicant also requests a tree removal permit to remove 67 trees, 63 of which are between 6” and 12” Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), 8 of which are dead, and 4 are significant trees which are larger than 12” DBH. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; ZONING: RR-.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 DA; TAX LOTS: 1800 Page 1 of 2 Total Page Number: 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda VII.OPEN DISCUSSION Space VIII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: March 25, 2025 If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Derek Severson at planning@ashlandoregon.gov or 541.488.5305 (TTY phone number Notification at least three business days before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Page 2 of 2 Total Page Number: 2 Planning CommissionMinutes Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. January 28, 2025 STUDY SESSION DRAFT Minutes I.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 welcomed Commissioner John Maher to the Commission. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Manager Gregory Perkinson Sabrina Cotta, City Manager Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Susan MacCracken Jain Kerry KenCairn John Maher Absent Members: Council Liaison: Doug Knauer II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements: Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The City’s annual address was given by Mayor Graham last week, which included department updates and statistics from 2024. The applicant for the annexation of 1511 Highway 99 North will go to the Council on February 4, 2025 to request that the application fees be waived. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.OTHRE BUSINESS A.Introduction of the Commission & Committee Handbook with City Manager Sabrina Cotta. Page 1 of 2 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 3 Planning CommissionMinutes City Manager Sabrina Cotta gave a brief presentation on a new Commission & Committee Handbook, which included updates on the following policies: Ashland Social Media Policy Electronic Media & Technology Use Policy Workplace Fairness Act Policy Workplace Violence Prevention Policy Additional changes included clarification on meeting procedures, member attendance, and the keeping of minutes. B.Introduction of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Guide and Pre-Approved Plans Mr. Goldman stated that the purpose of the guide and pre-approved plans is to provide an accessible way for residents to develop accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the City at minimal cost. These pre-approved plans are held by the City and can be used by applicants at no cost in order to lower development fees. These plans were provided by various developers in the City, including Derek Sherrell, Carlos Delgado, and also by the City of Medford. C.Presentation by Derek Sherrell, That ADU Guy Mr. Sherrell offered a brief presentation on the benefits of developing ADUs in cities, and ways that the City could encourage residents to build more ADUs and lower costs (see attachment #1). VI.OPEN DISCUSSION Mr. Goldman reminded the Commission that the continuation of the public hearing for PA-T1-2024- 00255, 110 Terrace Street would come before them at their February 11, 2025 Regular Meeting. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 2 of 2 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 4 Planning CommissionMinutes 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. February 11, 2025 REGULAR MEETING DRAFT Minutes I.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. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Eric Herron Derek Severson, Planning Manager Gregory Perkinson Carmel Zahran, Assistant City Attorney Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Susan MacCracken Jain Kerry KenCairn John Maher Absent Members: Council Liaison: Doug Knauer II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements - None 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports – None III.CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes a. January 14, 2025, Regular Meeting Commissioners Phillips/KenCairn m/s to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.INFINISHED BUSINESS Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2024-00254, Sutton Place TL 1600, The Oaks of Ashland Subdivision Page 1 of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 5 Planning CommissionMinutes Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was disclosed. Deliberations Chair Verner asked if Commission Maher had reviewed the January 14, 2025 Regular meeting recording, minutes, and materials in order to vote on the findings. Commission Maher confirmed that he had. Commissioners KenCairn/Herron m/s to approve the findings as presented. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING – CONTINUED A. 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 A. Settlement of the Record Chair Verner stated that the Public Hearing had been closed at the January 14, 2025 meeting but that the record had been left open at the request of the applicant to allow for additional comments to be submitted. The Public Record was left open such that only parties-of-record - defined as individuals or entities who have previously provided written or oral testimony on the matter – would be permitted to submit written testimony by 4:30 p.m. on January 22, 2025. Any party-of-record would have until 4:30 p.m. on January 30, 2025 to offer a rebuttal to those comments received by January 22. The applicant would have until 4:30 p.m. on February 7, 2025 to offer final arguments or comments on any materials submitted. Chair Verner asked the Commission to determine whether written testimony received by non- parties-of-record between January 15, 2025 and January 22, 2025 should be included in the record (see attachment #1). Page 2 of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 6 Planning CommissionMinutes Commissioners Phillips/Maher m/s to include written testimony received by non-parties-of- record between January 15, 2025 and January 22, 2025 in the record. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Chair Verner asked the Commission to determine whether written testimony received by non- parties-of-record between January 23, 2025 and January 30, 2025, after the record was closed, should be included in the record (see attachment #2). Commissioners KenCairn/Phillips m/s to exclude written testimony received by non-parties-of- record between January 23, 2025 and January 30, 2025 from the record. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Chair Verner stated that the applicant had submitted materials challenging four comments that had been submitted into the record and had requested that those comments be stricken or redacted from the record as they contained new evidence(see attachment #3). Commissioner Phillips noted that the Commission had received a request from Rob Patridge to extend the comment period to allow for additional testimony, and asked how an extension would affect the project’s application timeline (see attachment #4). Mr. Goldman explained that a further extension of the timeline could push the application past the 120-day deadline for the City to render a decision, which could result in the application automatically being approved. The Commission determined that the record should not be reopened. Commissioners Phillips/KenCairn m/s to exclude portions of the January 29, 2025 letter from Sydnee Dreyer, an attachment to a letter submitted on January 29, 2025 by Maylee Oddo and Brock Dumont, Exhibit C of a January 30, 2025 letter from Rob Patridge, and the January 30, 2025 memorandum from the City of Ashland Planning Staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner MacCracken Jain requested clarification regarding Mr. Patridge’s January 30 submittal and his contention that it should be retained in the record. Mr. Goldman responded that Mr. Patridge had submitted a records request to the Oregon Health Authority seeking information regarding the applicant’s project, but had not received the requested information until January 24. Mr. Patridge argued in a February 11, 2025 letter to staff that the information he submitted on January 30th should be included in the record since the lateness of the submittal was outside of his control, and because the information contained within was already known to the applicant. Mr. Goldman pointed out that, while this information was known to the applicant, it was not known to the Commission, and thus constituted new information submitted into the record after the January 22 deadline had expired. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Page 3 of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 7 Planning CommissionMinutes Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was disclosed. B. Deliberations Commissioner MacCracken Jain motioned that a Peer Respite Center most closely resembled a Group Living facility. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioners KenCairn/Maher m/s that the application most similarly resembled a travelers accommodations, which is a short-term stay of less than 30 day and does not qualify as residential dwelling. DISCUSSION: Commissioner MacCracken Jain stated that the short-term duration is a singular disqualifier in terms of reasonable accommodation, and is overly harsh as there are additional aspects to it, including the collection of fees or whether food or services are provided. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners KenCairn, Maher, Phillips, Herron, Perkinson, and Verner: AYE. Commissioner MacCracken Jain: NAY. Motion passed 6-1. The Commission considered the applicant’s request for a reasonable accommodation. Regarding this issue, Commissioner KenCairn noted that cities are not required to disregard their own land use ordinances in order to grant reasonable accommodation requests and suggested that the application failed the two tests required for approval. Chair Verner stated that approving the proposal would alter RR.5 Zones, adding that the purpose of zones is to have orderly locations of uses after logical review and that allowing particular uses in zones where they would otherwise be unpermitted would alter the zone and require a code amendment process. Commissioners Perkinson/Phillips m/s to deny the application on the basis that a reasonable accommodation does not apply to traveler’s accommodations. DISCUSSION: Chair Verner requested clarification on why a reasonable accommodation would not apply. Commissioner Phillips responded that the facility would not be a residence. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. VII.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2024-00010 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 300 Clay St. OWNER: Bentella LLC APPLICANT: Rogue Development DESCRIPTION: A request for annexation and zone change for a 4.8-acre property, along with adjacent Right-of-Way (ROW), for the property located at 300 Clay Street. The application also includes a request for a 25-lot (37 dwelling unit) Outline Plan Approval for a Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision, as well as a limited activities WRPZ permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential; ZONING: County RR-5 (R-1-3.5 requested); MAP: 39-1E-11-CB Tax Lot 1100; TAX LOT: 1100 Page 4 of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 8 Planning CommissionMinutes Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Herron, Perkinson, Phillips, and Verner conducted site visits. No ex parte contact was disclosed. Staff Presentation Planning Manager Derek Severson outlined the application as including the following requests: an Annexation/Zone change for the 4.8-acre property and adjacent right-of-way (ROW), with eight units designated as affordable housing; Outline Plan approval for a Performance Standards Options (PSO) subdivision; a Limited Activities & Uses Permit for public utilities with the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ); and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four non-hazard trees. The application also requested an Exception to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires the affordable units to have a comparable mix of bedrooms to market-rate units. The applicant asserted that they are building the proposed townhomes as rental units, but that they cannot control future developments of attached single-family residential units (see attachment #4). Mr. Severson suggested that, if the Commission were to reject the Exception request, it could add a condition of approval addressing the Final Plan and requiring deed restrictions to meet the affordable bedroom maximum. Mr. Severson stated that the existing wetland area is significantly smaller than it appears in the City’s wetlands inventory, and therefore the applicant has proposed to treat the existing wetland area on the north end of the property as a possible wetland, with a delineating line and 20ft open space buffer. He stated that the Tree Management Advisory Committee recommended approval to remove the four trees requested. Staff recommended the Commission make a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the six conditions suggested in the staff report. Questions of Staff The Commission questioned if the proposed development would satisfy its affordable housing obligations. Commissioner MacCracken Jain questioned granting the applicant’s request for an Exception to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 due to their stated inability to control the future development of the subdivision. Applicant Presentation Applicant Amy Gunter outlined the proposed annexation and subdivision, stating that this project would provide needed housing, would allow for the future growth of Ashland as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and would comply with the applicable ordinance AMC 18.5.8.050. She stated that the proposed development types include 21 lots for detached residential and attached residential (duplex and/or accessory residential units), and four lots that accommodate four, four- plex multi-family units, one on each lot for a total of 37 dwellings, and four open space parcels. She Page 5 of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 9 Planning CommissionMinutes noted that the trip generation assessment found that the proposed development is below the requirements for a complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be conducted, but that a nearby bus- stop and multiple dispersal points via adjacent neighborhoods would help alleviate traffic. She stated that all required public infrastructure extensions for provisions of city water and electric service are proposed. Questions of the Applicant The Commission requested clarification regarding the affordable housing townhomes proposed by the applicant. Ms. Gunter responded that all the 2-bedroom townhomes would likely be kept by the owner as rental units, though they could be sold. Public Comments Public speakers Fred Stapenhorst, Suzanne Marie, and Pauline Short all expressed concerns regarding traffic, fire evacuation access, and wetland protection. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Gunter stated that the wetland was found to be smaller than earlier thought, which was codified in a wetland map adoption in 2022. She added that a water-dispersal trench could be installed to provide additional watering to the wetland areas. She noted that the wetland would not be bisected by the proposed street. She stated that the multi-family dwelling units would have fire suppression systems and fire- resistant exteriors, though she could not speak to fires in the valley. Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:57 p.m. Deliberations Commissioner Phillips asked what the City’s responsibility is to man-made wetlands. Mr. Goldman responded that the applicant is required to delineate the current wetland and provide a 20ft buffer. Commissioners Perkinson/KenCairn m/s to accept staff’s recommendation and recommend that the City Council approve the annexation and approve the outline plan with conditions as proposed in the staff report, correcting a non-substantive error in the proposed conditions, and th with the addition of a 7 condition stating “that the final plan submittal shall identify a mix of bedrooms for the affordable units comparable to the bedroom mix of the market rate units and include necessary deed restrictions to ensure compliance.” DISCUSSION: Commissioner Phillips noted that the applicant had mentioned a financial benefit for all the duplexes to be two-bedroom, and expressed concern about creating additional restrictions to obtain financing for affordable housing. Commissioner KenCairn responded that deed restrictions would only affect future single- family homes and not the townhomes. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Page 6 of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 10 Planning CommissionMinutes VIII.OTHER BUSINESS Ashland Modified Flood Zone along Hamilton Creek Staff requested that the Planning Commission initiate a planning action as allowed by AMC 18.5.8.040 to make an amendment to the officially adopted maps of the “Ashland Modified Floodplain.” The reason for this amendment is that it has come to Staff’s attention that the stretch of Hamilton Creek, while shown on the official maps, was adopted in error sometime between 2008 and 2010. Direction from the Commission would initiate an amendment as a city-initiated action to correct a mapping error effecting multiple properties along the full length of the mapped Ashland modified floodplain corridor for Hamilton Creek but would not alter the FEMA-regulated floodplain. If initiated, final approval would go back before the Commission and Council for adoption. Commissioners Phillips/Herron m/s for staff to prepare an amendment officially adopting maps removing the Ashland modified floodplain from the subject portion of Hamilton Creek. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. IX.OPEN DISCUSSION The Commission discussed the recent Commission and Committee Handbook updates and how those effect term limits and members attending meetings virtually. X.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 7 of 7 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Total Page Number: 11 Total Page Number: 12 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 13 Total Page Number: 14 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 15 Total Page Number: 16 THE CITY OF ASHLAND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION March11, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T3-2024-00010A) REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE FOR A 4.8-ACRE ) PROPERTY, ALONG WITH ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW), FOR ) THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 CLAY STREET AND A REQUEST ) FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE )FINDINGS, STANDARDS OPTION (PSO) SUBDIVISION, AS WELL AS A LIMITED )CONCLUSIONS, ACTIVITIES WRPZ PERMIT.)AND ORDERS. ) OWNER:BENTELLA LLC ) APPLICANT:ROGE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ) _______________________________________________________________ ) RECITALS: 1)The subject property is Tax lot #1100 of Assessor Map 39-1E-11-CB and is addressed as 300 Clay Street. The property is 4.8 acres and slopes gently to the north. The property has 330- feet of frontage along Clay Street which is fully improved to city standards.Engle Street terminates on both the north and south side of the property. 2)The subject property is located on the east side of Clay Street, with )to the north, and Snowberry Brook developmentto the south. To the eastof the subject propertyis the rear of a mobile home park that frontsTolman Creek Road.The property is within the UGBandis adjacent to the City Limitson the north, east and south sides. 3)The adopted Wetland Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) maps indicate wetlands in two locations; however, the application materials include a wetland delineation, reviewed and approved by the Department of State Lands (DSL), which determined that there is onlya single identified wetland that is 0.0096 acres. The application materials propose a twenty- foot buffer around the identified wetland to be dedicated as open space. 4)The application is a request for annexation and outline plan approval for a Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivision.The applicant provided detailed responses to all applicable approval criteria in the form of findings of fact, a trip generation assessment and TPR findings, legal description and survey of the property,landscaping and civil engineering plans, and conceptual building design for future Site Design Review.These materials are on file at the Department of Community Development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. a.The proposed PSO subdivision includes a total of 25-lots for residential development, 21 of them are proposed for single family residential (SFR) PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 1 Total Page Number: 17 development, four lots proposed with four-plex townhomes, and four additional lots to be dedicated as open space area. The SFR lots may be developed with either Accessory Residential Units (ARU) or duplexes as permissibleby House Bill 2001. b.The 16 dwellings in the fourplexes plus the 21 SFR lots sums to a proposed density of 37 dwelling units. c.The application also includes a limited activities permit for public utilities within the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). d.The application also includes a request to remove four non-hazard trees. 5)Annexations require that at least 25% of the base density be affordable housing. In the present application there are eight affordable housing units proposed at 80% area median income (AMI) to meet this requirement. 6) Type III planning actionsarelegislative decisionsby definition, and arereviewed by the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Council makes final decisions on legislative proposals through the enactment of an ordinance. 7)The criteria of approval for Annexation are described in AMC 18.5.8.050as follows: PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 2 Total Page Number: 18 PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 3 Total Page Number: 19 PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 4 Total Page Number: 20 8)The criteriaof approvalfor Outline Plan of a PSO subdivision are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3as follows: PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 5 Total Page Number: 21 9)The criteria of approval for a WRPZ Limited Activities and Uses Permitare described in AMC 18.3.11.060.Das follows: D.Limited Activities and Uses Permit. All limited activities and uses described in section 18.3.11.060 shall be subject to a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050. An application for a limited activities and uses permit shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria: 1.All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable, designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone and disturb as little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable. 2.The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse impacts on water resources. 3.On stream beds or banks within the bank-full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25 percent or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided exceptwhere no practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability. 4.Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and wetlands. 5.Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement, and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section 18.3.11.110, Mitigation Requirements. 6.Long-term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures. 10)The criteria of approval for a Tree Removal Permit for a non-hazardous treeare described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2as 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 PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 6 Total Page Number: 22 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. 11)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 11, 2025. 12)Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented.The Planning Commission deliberated 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 MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGSOF FACT 2.1The Planning Commission notes that chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The LUOregulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and encouragesefficient 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. PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 7 Total Page Number: 23 2.2The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera th decision based on the applicationitself,theFebruary11Staff Report, the testimony, the exhibits received, and public testimony received at the public hearing. 2.3The Planning Commission notes that the application was deemed complete and that the th notice for the public hearing was both postedon,January 6(20 days prior to the February 11 Meeting)at the frontage of the subject property, as well as the street stubs on the north and south side of the property. Notice was also mailed to all property owners within 200-feet of the subject property. 2.4The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Annexation meets all applicable approval criteria described in AMC 18.5.8.050 and detailed below. 2.4.1The annexed area is within the y (UGB).the UGB runs along the north side of East Main in this portion of town which is approximately 0.2 miles to the north. The Planning Commission concludesthat the property is within the UGB and finds that this approval criterion has been met. 2.4.2The annexation proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations applicable to the annexed area. The Planning Commission notes that the comprehensive plan designation of the property is suburban residential, and the property does not yet have an assigned zone. The application requests a zone change to R-1-3.5 which isappropriate for the comprehensive plan designation of suburban residential. The Planning Commission notes that the table at AMC 18.3.9.050 provides the residential density for a PSO subdivision, and that for the R-1-3.5 zone it specifies a residential density of 7.2 dwelling unit per acre. The Planning Commission notes that thesubject property is 4.8 acres and concludesthat the allowed base density for the subject property is 34.56. (4.8 x 7.2 = 34.56).The Planning Commission notes that the present proposal leverages an affordable housing density bonus to exceed the base density for a total of 37 dwellings. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.3.9.050.B.3 provides a density bonus of two units for each affordable housing unit provided up to maximum bonus of 35-percent, this would allow for up to an additional 12 units over the based density. The proposed 37 dwellings utilize only 3 of the available bonus units foracalculated bonus of 8.7%, which is well below the 35 percent available. The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposed 37 dwellings are within the allowed base and bonus density standards and find that the proposed density of residential development, including the proposed affordable housing, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Planning Commission concludesthat based on the proposed number of dwellings, the size of the property, and the requested zoning,and findsthat this approval criterion has been met. 2.4.3.The annexed area is contiguous with the City limits.subject property is shown onthemapbelow. The Planning Commission notes thatthe mapis from the City Geographic Information System (GIS) and has a yellow and grey dashed PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 8 Total Page Number: 24 line that indicates the city limits. The Planning Commission note that the subject property is contiguous with the City limitsto the north, south, and eastand finds that this approval criterion has been met. 2.4.4Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the annexed area as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the annexed area to an approved waste water treatment facility as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the annexed area as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided from the annexed area. property is served by all city utilities and that the Public Works Department has confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any City facilities.The Planning Commission notes that Clay Street contains an eight-inch water main, eight- -inch water mains at both the north and south of the property as well as an eight-inch sewer main and a ten-inch sewer main at the north stub of Engle Street. The Planning Commission notes that due to the nature of gravity systems and the topography of the site no sewer or storm is needed on the southern stub of Engle Street. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes a complete set of plans for the proposed civil improvements prepared by Powell Engineering & Consultingwhichprovide complete details on street improvements including curb, gutter, planter strip and sidewalk as well as a protected bike laneall designed to meet city standards.The Planning Commission concludesthat based on the existing and proposed improvements that this approval criterion is met. 2.4.5Adequate transportation can and will be provided to serve the annexed area. For the purposes of this section, transit transportation.The Planning Commission notes that the LUO requires a PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 9 Total Page Number: 25 minimum 22-foot-wide paved access and for both bicycle and pedestrian facilities be safe and accessible pursuant to the governing jurisdiction. The Planning Commission notes that theapplication material includes a trip generation assessment and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) findings prepared by Southern Oregon Transportation and Engineering. These materials detail the expected trip generation of the proposed development and showthat the proposed development is below the requirements for a complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as the development is expected to only generate 30 weekday peak hour trips where the threshold for a TIA is 50 newlygenerated vehicle trips. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed development includes the creation of new local neighborhood roads connecting Engle Street, as well as a new neighborhood street connecting to Clay Street and that all proposed public facilities are to be constructed to City of Ashland Standards.The Planning Commission notes that all proposed roads meet or exceed the 22-foot wide paved width. The Planning Commission finds,based on the fact that all proposed transportation facilities are to be built to the City Standards, and that those standards were created to provide adequatesafe and accessible transportationthat this approval criterion is met. 2.4.6The sixth approval criteria for annexation all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the annexed area will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units are necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints.The Planning Commission notes, as stated above, that the subject property is 4.8 acres and has an allowed base density of 7.2 dwellings per acre for acalculatedbase density of ~34 (4.8 x 7.2 = 34.56). The Planning Commission notesthat 90% of the calculate base density is ~32dwelling units. (34.56 x 0.9 = 31.1). The Planning Commission notesthat the proposed density for the subdivisionis 37 dwellings which exceeds theminimum requirement of 32 dwellings and therefore find that the approval criterion is met. 2.4.7The seventh approval criteria for annexation annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. applicant proposes affordable housing restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), and that such units each have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.5.8.050.G.1 provides The base density of the annexed area for the purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units in this section shall exclude any unbuildable area including wetlandsThe total number of affordable units described in this subsection shall be determined by rounding up fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. determined that the area of the wetland is 0.0096acres. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the total number of affordable units we calculate the density excluding the PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 10 Total Page Number: 26 wetland area, as follows: 4.8 acres -0.0096acres = 4.79acres x 7.2 dwelling units per acer = 34.49dwelling units x 0.25 = 8.6 ~ 9 affordable dwelling units.The Planning Commission reaffirms that affordable units designated for households earning 80% AMI or less have an equivalent value of 1.25per AMC 18.5.8.050G.1.c. To determine the required number of 80% AMI units needed to satisfy the affordable housing requirement, the total required affordable unitsin this case, nineis divided by 1.25 (the equivalency value). Calculation:9 affordable units ÷ 1.25 = 7.2, which rounds up to 8 units. Therefore, providing eight units at 80% AMI fulfills the requirement for nine affordable units. Based on this calculation, the Planning Commission concludes that the approval criterion is met. 2.4.7.1The Planning Commission notes that theapplication includes arequest for an Exception to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3 which requires the affordable units to have a comparable bedroom mix with the market rate units. In this instance, the market rate units are a mix of attached and detached two-, three-and four-bedroom units as well as potential Accessory Dwelling Units, while the affordable units are all proposed as attached two-bedroom townhomes. The application asserts that the applicant intends to build the townhomes as rental units themselves but will not build all of the other detached residential unitson the single-familylotsand thus cannot control the number of bedrooms.The Planning Commission notes that the City Council will ultimately make a decision with regard to the Annexation criteria, including this Exception request, and will .The Planning Commission finds that the Exception request does not independently meet the burden of proof. However, with the following condition of approvalas recommended by the Commission, the Commission findsthat the criterion will be met:"That the final plan submittal shall identify a mix of bedrooms for the affordable units comparable to the bedroom mix of the market rate units and include necessary deed restrictions to ensure compliance." 2.4.8The eighth approval criterion for annexation requiresat least one of five standards * to be met.The first of these standards isthat The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.B, above. that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations notes again that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and finds that since the second approval criterion was satisfied that this approval criterion has also been * The other four options are for the situations where the annexation would be allowed even if the development is not consistent with the Comprehensive plan: 2.A current or probable danger to public health exists within the proposed area for annexation due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services in accordance with the criteria in ORS chapter 222 or successor state statute. 3.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year. 4.The proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City. 5.The proposed area for annexation is an island surrounded by lands within the City limits. PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 11 Total Page Number: 27 met. 2.4.9The ninth and final approval criteriafor annexation relates to requested exceptions. The only exception requested, which was discussed above, was an exception toAMC 18.5.8.050.G.3, which requires the affordable units to have a comparable bedroom mix with the market rate units. The Planning Commission made findings that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support such an exception and included a condition of approval to ensure that the standard is met at final plan approval. With the denial of the exception The Planning Commission finds that this approval criterion is met. 2.4.10the applicant for the annexation shall also declare which procedure under ORS chapter 222 the applicant proposes that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely (AMC 18.5.8.070). The application states that the annexation procedure outlined in ORS This procedure allows for annexation without the need for an election when all landowners in the proposed territory, as well as a majority of the electors, consent in writing. The applicant is the sole owner and can provide written consent within the annexation territory on the fact that there is a single property is proposed for annexation, the Planning Commission finds that this standard is met. The Planning Commission concludes based on the above that all applicable approval criteria for annexation approval have been satisfied. 2.5The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Planof a Performance Standard Option (PSO) subdivisionmeets all applicable criteria for described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3and detailed below. 2.5.1The first 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 applicable. The Planning Commission notes that for the purposes of resolving this criterion we rely on the and the Staff Report, and testimony provided.The Planning Commission notes that with the findings that are set out below, and the adopted conditions of approval that the proposal will meet all applicable ordinance requirements andfinds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.2Adequate 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 city facilities were discussed at length in the fourth approval criterion for annexation and restate them for the record here. The Planning Commission notesthat the application indicates that the property is served by all city utilities and that the Public Works Department has confirmed that there are no concerns regarding the capacity of any City facilities. The Planning Commission notes PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 12 Total Page Number: 28 that Clay Street contains an eight-inch water main, eight- storm water main, that Engle Street has eight-inch water mains at both the north and south of the property as well as an eight-inch sewer main and a ten-inch sewer main at the north stub of Engle Street. The Planning Commission notes that due to the nature of gravity systems and the topography of the site no sewer or storm is needed on the southern stub of Engle Street. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes a complete set of plans for the proposed civil improvements prepared by Powell Engineering & Consulting which provide complete details on street improvements including curb, gutter, planter strip and sidewalk as well as a protected bike lane all designed to meet city standards. The Planning Commission concludesthat based on the existing and proposed improvements that this approval criterion is met. 2.4.3The 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 aside from the proposed tree removals, which are discussed below, that the only other natural feature to address is the delineatedwetland. The Planning Commission notes that the wetland along with a twenty-foot buffer is proposed to be in a lot dedicated to open space. The Planning Commission notes that there are no other natural features to address and find that this approval criteria is satisfied. 2.4.4The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is thatThe 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 to the west is Clay Street, and East Village mobile home park that fronts Tolman Creek Road. The Planning Commission notes that there is no adjacent vacant landand that with the foregoingfindthat this approval criterion is met. 2.4.5The fifth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.The Planning Commission notes that thedraftHOA governing instruments have obligations for the maintenance of the open space and other common amenities. The Planning Commission finds that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of the open space and common areas andfinds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.6The sixth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is thatThe proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.The Planning Commission notes that density was discussed in the second approval criterion of annexation and restate those findings again here. The Planning Commission notes that the table at AMC 18.3.9.050 provides the residential density for a PSO subdivision, and that for the R-1-3.5 zoneit specifies a residential density of 7.2 dwelling unit per acre. The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is 4.8 acres and concludesthat the PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 13 Total Page Number: 29 allowed density for the subject property is 34.56. (4.8 x 7.2 = 34.56). The Planning Commission notes that the present proposal leverages affordable housing density bonus to exceed the base density for a total of 37 dwellings. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.3.9.050.B.3 provides a density bonus of two units for each affordable housing unit provided up to maximum bonus of 35-percent, this would allow for up to an additional 12 units over the based density. The proposed 37 dwellings utilize only 3 of the available bonus units for calculated bonus of 8.7%, which is well below the 35 percent available. The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposed 37 dwellings are within the allowed base and bonus density standards and finds that this criterion of approval is satisfied. 2.4.7The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is thatThe development complies with the Street Standards.The Planning Commission notes that transportation facilities were discussed at length in the fifth approval criterion for annexation and restate them for the record here. The proposed development includes the creation of new local neighborhood roads connecting Engle Street, as well as a new neighborhood street connecting to Clay Street and that all proposed public facilities are proposed to be constructed to City of Ashland Standards. The Planning Commission notes that the application includes detailed width including seven-foot planter strip and five-foot sidewalk which meets the standards shown in Figure 18.4.6.040.G.4.b. Planning Commission notes that there are two locations on the preliminary plat and civil . A condition of approval is included below that will require the revised civil plans at Final Plan approval to The Planning Commission findsthatwith the included condition of approval below that all proposed transportation facilities are built to the City Standards that this approval criterion is met. 2.4.8The final criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that is that The proposed development meets the common open spacestandards 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 eightpercent 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 proposed subdivision includes four open space areas totaling 16,102 square feet. The requirement for minimum open space for a PSO subdivision is five percent of total lot area for developments with a base density of 10 units or more. The subject property is 209,088 square feet in size, five percent of that is 10,454square feet. Based on the calculation above the applicant is providing a total of 7.7% in open space which exceeds the required minimumand find that this approval criterion is met. The Planning Commission concludes based on the above and finds that all applicable approval criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval have been satisfied. 2.5The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Water ResourceProtection Zone (WRPZ)Limited Activities and Uses Permitmeets all of the applicable criteria described in AMC PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 14 Total Page Number: 30 18.5.5.050 and as detailed below.As explained above the property has locally identified wetlands application states that based on the area of the wetland, the wetland is not a Significant Wetland, but a small, 418.76 square foot (.0096 acre) wetland area, as such they propose a twenty-foot buffer around this 419 square foot area.The Planning Commission notes that among the listed lowed in the WRPZ area is the installation of public and The proposed stormwater lateral dispersal trench is a permitted use within the Water Resource Protection Zone. The utility is outside of the wetland area and is proposed at the outer edge of the 20-foot wetland buffer zone.The areas of disturbance will be reseeded with a native grass mix that is appropriate for planting in the wetland buffer zone.ion notes that all disturbance activities shall be as far away from the wetland as practicable. The Planning Commission further notes that the proposed storm water infrastructure is at the edge of the buffer area and concludes that the nature of the storm water system requires that it be within some proximity to the wetland. The Planning Commission notes that the proposal has been designed to minimize the excavation area, that the wetland is located on HOA open space, and that the long- term conservation will be ensured through the HOA management documents. The Planning Commission concludes based on the forgoing that the proposed storm water facility meets all the required approval criteria. 2.6The 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 notethat the application includes a request to remove four trees. The application describes the removals as There are three deciduous trees that have a DBH of 12-inches or more that are proposed for removal and one tree conifer tree greater than 16 inches DBH. These trees are within the area of the public streets, the alley and within the building envelope area of the development area of the lots. The tree removal is necessitated by the construction of public streets, an alley and residential dwellings. Commission notesthat to approval the removal of a non-hazard tree it needs to be shown 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. that the location of these trees being within the proposed street dedication and building envelopes, the proposed removals are found to meet the standards. The Planning Commission notes that the applicant will be required to mitigate for the removal of each tree and further notes that preliminary landscape plan, shows that the number of trees to be planted far exceeds the four that are required to mitigate these proposed removals. The Planning Commission find, based on the forgoing,that the applicable approval criteria are met. 2.7The Planning Commission notes that following proper public notice, a public hearingwas heldonFebruary 11, 2025,where testimony was received, and exhibits were presented. 2.7.1The Planning Commission deliberated,and amotion was made torecommend approval to the City Council. The recommendation to approvethe application wassubject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Reportalong with added conditionof approval: That the final plan submittal shall identify a mix of bedrooms for the affordable units PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 15 Total Page Number: 31 comparable to the bedroom mix of the market rate units and include necessary deed restrictions to ensure compliance. 2.8the Staff Report,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. 2.8.1The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that eachof the criteria of approvalfor annexation and Outline Plan have been met. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request Annexation and Outline Plan Approval is supported by evidence contained within the whole record and forwards a recommendation of approval to City Council including the conditions of approval below. The conditions of approval arebelow: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That the applicant appliesfor final plan approval pursuant to AMC 18.3.9.040.B within 18 months of this outline plan approval. The application for Final Plan approval will be required to include the following: a.That the revised civil and site plans that are to be submitted with Final Plan b. drive and all common area amenities. c.That pursuant to AMC 13.24.010.C that the applicant shall consult with the Public Works Director for approval of the proposed street name of Calera Lane. d.That the final plan submittal shall identify a mix of bedrooms for the affordable units comparable to the bedroom mix of the market rate units and include necessary deed restrictions to ensure compliance. 3)That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any additional work in the public right of way. 4)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months of Final Plan approval and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this 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. PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 16 Total Page Number: 32 b.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. 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. 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 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, and fire apparatus access easements. b.For Lots #1-16 & 25 Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height 6) / (0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. c.For Lots #17-24 Demonstrate compliance with the approved solar setback showing that any shadows cast do not exceed five feet above the finished floor elevation of the main level of a house on the respective lots to their north, assuming the affected house is built sixfeet from the shared property line. d.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-3.5 zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and anyother areas other than natural landscaping. e.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 alternativein accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. Planning Commission ApprovalDate PA-T3-2024-00010 March11, 2025 Page 17 Total Page Number: 33 Total Page Number: 34 PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ Total Page Number: 35 Total Page Number: 36 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2024-00053 SUBJECT PROPERTY:231 Granite Street PROPERTY OWNERS:Stephanie & Bryan DeBoer APPLICANTS: Carlos Delgado Architect DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental (P&E) Constraints permit to construct a new single-family dwelling in steep slopes greater than 25% within the hillside overlay area, including exceptions to the hillside design standards. The proposal includes a Type 2 variance due to the proposed driveway grade exceeding 18%. The applicant also requests a tree removal permit to remove 67 trees, 63 of which are between 6” and 12” Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), 8 of which are dead, and 4 are significant trees which are larger than 12” DBH. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Low Density Residential;ZONING:RR-.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 DA; TAX LOTS:1800 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday March 11, 2025at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 37 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 Veronica Allenat 541-488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.3.10.050 An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall beapproved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shallbe considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS 18.3.10.090.H An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 38 2.The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4.The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may besufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the 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. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) 1.Hazard Tree.A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likelyto fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b.The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 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 Ordinancerequirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversitywithin 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removalhave 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. ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY FLAG LOT PARTITION PLAT CRITERIA 18.5.3.060 The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are met. A.The criteria of section 18.5.3.050are met. B.For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 39 minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive,the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. D.Except as provided in subsection 18.5.3.060.H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. For drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel. E.Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways.No more than two flag lots are served by the flag drive. F.Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5Variances. G.Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1.Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. 2.No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3.A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. 4.The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four-inch by four-inch post that is 3½ feet high. The post shallbe painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. I.Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. J.When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround (see Figure 18.4.6.040.G.5). The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. K.Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out. L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance. M.Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18.6, shall provide a fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical obstructions and within 50 feet of the structure. The fire work area requirement shall be waivedif the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. N.Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or fire resistant broadleaf evergreen site-obscuring hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed to ensure fire apparatus access is not obstructed by the encroachment of mature landscaping. O.The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. P.Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 40 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 41 Total Page Number: 42 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission – March 11, 2025 PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2024-00053 PROPERTY OWNERS: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer APPLICANTS:Carlos Delgado Architect for Bryan & Stephanie Deboer LOCATION: 39 1E 08 DA Tax Lots 1800 ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-.5-P COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCES:See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse AMC 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones AMC 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones AMC 18.3.10 Development Standards for Hillside Lands AMC 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation AMC 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection AMC 18.4.8 Solar Access AMC 18.5.1 General Review Procedures AMC 18.5.3 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria AMC 18.5.5 Variances AMC 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits AMC 18.6.1 Definitions APPLICATION DATE: October 17, 2024 APPLICATION COMPLETE: January 31, 2025 PUBLIC NOTICE: February 19, 2025 MEETING DATE:March 11, 2025 120-DAY DEADLINE: May 31, 2025 I. Request The application proposes the construction of a new single-family residential home on a vacant parcel at 231 Granite Street. Because of the steep topography and the existing driveway location and grade, the development of both the home and driveway require several planning approvals. These planning approvals include a Physical and Environmental constraints review (P&E) which includes several requested exceptions, a variance to the allowed maximum grade of a driveway, and tree removal permits for the removal of sixty-seven (67) trees, four (4) of which are significant and eight (8) are dead. Each of these will be discussed in detail below. II.Description of Property The property at 231 Granite Street is a legal lot of record that was created in its current shape and size as Parcel 3 of Partition Plat P-43-1996 as 2.182 acres. This partition plat Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 1 of 13 included a boundary line agreement to adjust the Northern property line to match the existing shared fence line with 234 Strawberry Lane and was created prior to the City’s hillside development ordinance. The property is zoned RR-.5, a single-family residential zoning, and is located within the Hillside Overlay. The majority of the property is located within slopes greater than 25% with much of the sloped area being 35% or greater slope. Although the site contains severe slopes, it is acknowledged to be developable for a single- family home or duplex consistent with the underlying zoning pursuant to AMC 18.3.10.090.A1.a. III. Details of Application A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review to construct a new single- family dwelling in the Hillside Overlay with slopes over 35%. The proposal includes a Type II Variance for the driveway, as the existing topography requires a grade steeper than the maximum allowed 18%. While a driveway grade between 15% and 18% may be permitted through a Type I Variance, the steeper slope triggers the requirement for Type II Variance approval (18.5.3.060.F). Type II Variances are subject to review by the Planning Commission for a hearing and decision. As mentioned above, the application is a request for a Physical and Environmental (P&E) permit, variance to allowed lot coverage maximum grade of a driveway, hillside design exceptions, and tree removal permits pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10, 18.5.5, and 18.5.7 as further detailed below: The P&E is for the following land classifications: hillside, and severe constraints. The application also includes requests for exceptions from the following standards: o The standards allow new driveways on slopes greater than 35 percent for a length not to exceed 100 feet. Here the driveway proposed is 197 feet, but the majority of it is located on lands that have a slope less than 35 percent , with only small portions located in slopes greater than 35 percent. (AMC 18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.) o The standards require that downhill building walls greater than 20 feet provide a six-foot step-back. As proposed, the eastern façade wall is 26 feet high without the required step-back. (AMC 18.3.10.090 E.2.c) o The standards require that a continuous horizontal building plane which is greater than 36 feetin length include at least a six-foot off-set. The applicant proposes longer planes without the requisite off-set. (AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d.) Variance (Type II): o The standardrequires thatflag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent; provided, that the cumulative length of such variances across multiple sections of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances. (AMC 18.5.3.060.F.) Applicant’s submittals indicate Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 2 of 13 Total Page Number: 44 that the driveway is located on 18 to 30 percent slopes with an average slope of 23 percent over the 197-foot length of the driveway. A Tree Removal Permit for the removal of 4 significant trees. A total of 67 trees are identified as being removed; 4 of these are considered to be ‘significant’ by definition, and 8 are dead (AMC 18.5.7.040 & AMC 18.3.10.090.D). IV.Discussion The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to: “Provide for safe, orderly, and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.” Consistent with the purpose of designating properties as hillside lands, any exception or variance to the standards to facilitate development, including installation of driveway, should be the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The applicant has submitted a substantial set of findings addressing all of the relevant approval criteria for the planning action, the requested exceptions and variances. The application addresses the unique factor requiring the need for the requested variances is the fact that the area identified for the building envelope is located as close to the existing shared driveway access as possible to minimize ground disturbance. While this means that the proposed envelope is encroaching on 25%+ and 35%+ slopes, it is causing less significant disturbance than a longer driveway would require to develop the lower sloped portions of the lot. And finally, in discussing the exceptions in general the application states that the code did not anticipate a property with such steep slopes and that this is an existing lot that was created prior to the adoption of the Hillside Development Standards. In short, each requested exception and variance is based on placing the building envelope in a less steeparea while keeping it closer to the driveway to minimize impacts. The Hillside Development Standards do recommend that building envelope locations should be located to avoid ridgeline exposures (AMC 18.3.10.090.E.1.d) which is accomplished in this proposal by keeping the building shorter and closer to the slope. However, the building does not follow the slope of the lot and rather is placed upon it, requiring changes to the landscape in the form of excavating and grading to create a flat building location that does not peak the ridgeline. No formal building envelope was established for this lot in 1996 upon completion of the boundary lot adjustment and the Hillside Lands ordinance was adopted in 1997. The development of the property requires choosing between two options: placing the building envelope on the ridgeline, which would necessitate a taller structure to minimize disturbance to the steep slopes, or positioning in a location that results in greater Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 3 of 13 Total Page Number: 45 disturbance to areas with slopes exceeding 35%. The proposed application strikes a balance by placing the building envelope below the ridgeline, at the end of a shortened driveway, but primarily on slopes ranging from 25% to over 35%." What follows is a brief discussion of the requested exceptions and variances and the relative deviation from the base standards as presented in the application. A. Variances As mentioned above the application also includes the request for a variance to exceed the maximum allowed grade of the driveway. The application requests a variance to driveway grade to allow the driveway to exceed the 15-percent maximum grade, and the additional allowance to exceed 18-percent with approval of a Type II variance, for a distance of less than 200 feet. Ashland’s Land Use Ordinance at AMC 18.5.3.060.F requires that: “Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances.” The driveway is an existing shared access that comes off of the end of a very long, steep, partially paved private access easement. The proposed driveway is 197 feet in total length with an average slope of 15.23-percent. If the Planning Commission finds that the variance meets the criteria of approval this will be in accordance with the maximum allowed as stated in AMC 18.5.3.060.F. Similarly, the hillside standards have a standard that relates to new driveways from which the application request an exception. The Development Standards for Hillside Lands require that the new driveways be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35-percent slope except in circumstances where the driveway on lands greater than 35-percent slope does not exceed a length of 100-feet (see AMC 18.3.10.090.A.3). As stated previously, the application relies on the fact that the building envelope is located as close as feasible to the shared access and driveway to minimize disturbance. This location was chosen because it has the least steep slopes near the driveway. Given that much of the property has slopes exceeding 35% the application states that the exception is unavoidable. The proposed driveway is located at the only available access point, and due to the severity of slopes on the property, nearly the entirety of the driveway would be built on slopes that exceed 35-percent. B. Grading One grading requirement within the hillside standards was not included in the exception requests but would still need tobemet for compliance. The standards allow new driveways Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 4 of 13 Total Page Number: 46 on slopes greater than35 percent for a length not to exceed 100 feet. The drivewayas proposed driveway is 197 feet, but the majority of it is on natural slopes of less than 35%, with only small portions located on slopes greater than 35 percent. (AMC 18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.) C. Building Location and Design There are two items in the building location and design section within the hillside standards for which exceptions are requested including building walls on the downhill side greater than 20 feet providing a six-foot step-back, and that continuous horizontal building planes greater than 36 feet in length include at least a six-foot off-set. The applicant proposes longer horizontal planes without the requisite off-set and has downhill buildings walls greater than 20 feet with less than a six-foot step-back. As stated previously this does not conform to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands without approval of an exception. The application asserts that the roof mimics these off- sets and thus “meets the intent” of the code, while the building step backs are minimal to keep the building short and closer to parallel with the slope of the lot, without interfering with the ridgeline. D. Tree Removal The application states that in the area of disturbance, there are 75 trees larger than six inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height), 67 of which are proposed to be removed, and that the design of the project has taken efforts to minimize required tree removals. The application states that those trees identified for removal are because they are “are within the building envelope/footprint…” or “are within the proposed driveway or within the identified area of disturbance.” The application asserts that there are, “…(8) Douglas Fir trees in poor condition that are smaller than 18 inches in diameter at breast height, fourteen (14) Douglas Fir trees in poor condition that are smaller than 18 inches in diameter at breast height.” With that said, the application includes a request a Tree Removal permit for sixty-seven (67) regulated trees, including four (4) significant trees, and eight (8) dead trees. The City’s Tree Management Advisory Committee will review the proposed tree removals at their meeting on March 6th, and staff will provide their recommendations for th Planning Commission consideration at the March 11 , 2025 public hearing. In staff’s assessment, a finding can be made that with any conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, all relevant approval criteria are satisfied. V.Approval Criteria AMC 18.3.10.050 Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall approve the physical and environmental constraints review permit when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 5 of 13 Total Page Number: 47 A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. AMC 18.3.10.090.H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall approve the exceptions to design standards for hillside lands when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10, Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section 18.3.10.090, Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 18.5.3.060Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The criteria of section18.5.3.050are met. B.For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. D. Except as provided in subsection 18.5.3.060.H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. For drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 6 of 13 Total Page Number: 48 rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel. E.Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways. No more than two flag lots are served by the flag drive. F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent; provided, that the cumulative length of such variances across multiple sections of the flag drive does not exceed 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5, Variances. G. Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, except that: 1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. 2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. 4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four-inch by four-inch post that is 3½ feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. I.Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. J. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround (see Figure 18.4.6.040.G.5). The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. K.Where off-street parking is voluntarily provided on a flag lot, it shall be situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out. L.There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 7 of 13 Total Page Number: 49 M. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18.6, shall provide a fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical obstructions and within 50 feet of the structure. The fire work area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. N. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a sight-obscuring fence, wall or fire-resistant broadleaf evergreen sight-obscuring hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed to ensure fire apparatus access is not obstructed by the encroachment of mature landscaping. O. The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. P. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. AMC 18.5.5.050 Variance Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall approve the variance when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: 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. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 8 of 13 Total Page Number: 50 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. AMC 18.5.7.040 Tree Removal Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall approve the tree removals when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: B. Tree Removal Permit. 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 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, Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 9 of 13 Total Page Number: 51 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. In staff’s assessment, a finding can be made that with any conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, all relevant approval criteria are satisfied. VI.Conclusion and Recommendations Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Physical and Environmental Constraints review permit for new single-family dwelling in the hillside overlay, including the requested variance to driveway grade, exceptions to the hillside design standards, and the requested 67 tree removals. If the Planning Commission approves the application, staff recommends including the following conditions of approval below: 1. That all proposals of the applicant become conditions of approval. 2. That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, tree removal, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the 67 trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the remaining trees on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 3. That all recommendations of the Tree Management Advisory Committee, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 4. Prior to building permit issuance: a. That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Variance and Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b. Identification of all easements, including public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 10 of 13 Total Page Number: 52 c. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height – 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. d. Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 20 percent as required in AMC 18.2.5.030.C. e. That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. f.That a revised Tree Protection Plan consistent with the standards described in 18.4.5 be submitted for review by the Tree Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall identify the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan, and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root. g. That the tree protection fencing shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of a building permit. h. No construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. i. That a landscaping and irrigation plan to include irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies and showing parkrow improvements shall be provided prior to building permit issuance. j. That the tree protection and temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence and bale barriers) shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, issuance of an excavation permit and issuance of a building permit. The erosion control measures shall be installed as identified in the Marquess & Associates’ report dated December 5, 2024. The tree protection and temporary erosion control measures shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Department prior to site work, storage of materials, the issuance of an excavation permit, and/or the issuance of a building permit. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 11 of 13 Total Page Number: 53 k. A written verification from the project geotechnical expert addressing the consistency of the building permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the building permit. l. That written verification from the project geotechnical experts addressing the consistency of the building permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the building permit submittals. 5. Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan. 6. That a preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit shall be held prior to site work, the issuance of an excavation permit or the issuance of a building permit, whichever action occurs first. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Department, Ashland Building Department, the project engineer, project geotechnical experts (i.e. Marquess & Associates), landscape professional, arborist (i.e. Canopy) and the general contractor. The applicant or applicants’ representative shall contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. 7. That the foundation shall be designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience in accordance with 18.62.080.F. 8. That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.62.089.B.7. 9. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: a. The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. b. That all landscaping in the new landscaped areas shall be installed according to the approved plan, and tied into the existing irrigation system, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. c. That Marquess & Associates shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report by Marquess & Associates included in the application and date stamped December 5, 2024. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, Marquess & Associates shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 12 of 13 Total Page Number: 54 d. That the flag drive shall be paved to 12 feet, a vertical clearance of 13- feet, 6-inches and be able to withstand 44,000 lbs. prior to the certificate of occupancy. The flag drive shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over the private property lines and / or public way in accordance with 18.76.060.B. 10. Requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including that all addressing shall be approved prior to being installed, that fire apparatus access be provided, and that a fuel break is required. 11. That a 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. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00053 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (VA) Owner: Bryan & Stephanie Deboer Page 13 of 13 Total Page Number: 55 Total Page Number: 56 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 57 Total Page Number: 58 Total Page Number: 59 Total Page Number: 60 Total Page Number: 61 Total Page Number: 62 Total Page Number: 63 Total Page Number: 64 _________________________________ Total Page Number: 65 Total Page Number: 66 Feb 13, 2025 Revised Findings Planning Application Submittal Findings of Fact - New Residence in Environmental Constraints - Hillside Lands ADDRESS: 231 Granite Street, Ashland OR 97520 Assessors Map 39 1E 08 DA Tax Lot 1800 Zoning: Rural Residential (RR-.5-P) Owner Architect Bryan & Stephanie DeBoer Carlos Delgado 85 Winburn Way Carlos Delgado Architect LLC Ashland, OR 97520 200 Clear Creek Drive, Ste C 541.621.2881 Ashland, Oregon 97520 541 552 9502 Landscape Architect and Planning Shelby Scharen Scharen Design Studio Landscape Architecture & Planning Ashland, OR 97520 541.215.4464 ATTACHMENTS Project Narrative A0.1_Architectural Cover Sheet (11x17) AS1.0_Architectural Site Plan (11x17) A1.0_Architectural Daylight Basement Plan (11x17) A1.1_Architectural Main Floor Plan (11x17) A2.1_Exterior Elevations (11x17) A2.2_Exterior Elevations (11x17) L0.1_Tree Survey L0.2_Tree Removal Plan L0.3_Tree Removal Plan detail L1.0_Site Plan L1.1_Landscape Layout L2.0_Grading Plan L2.1_Existing Slope Analysis L3.0_Planting and Irrigation 1 Total Page Number: 67 Project Description This is a proposed new single-family residence of 4,798 sf, with 1/3 of the home as daylight basement, nestled into the hillside below grade and appearing at grade on the downhill side. The Main floor exits out onto the natural grade line and is integrated into the existing natural topography as such on the Southern side of the home. This project is subject to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands of the Physical and Environmental constraints section of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The project proposes a new driveway to access the residence as well that is created within and existing access and Utility easement. The residence will also have a 176 SF covered entry porch and 710 SF of outdoor covered patios. The residence is located on the lowermost Northeastern corner of the 2.18 acre lot, thus minimizing the driveway access & parking area. This section of the lot also inhabits the lowest slopes of the site. The residence with living on both levels and being oriented longitudinally with the contour lines to optimize its relation to grades and balances this house well with both cut and fill on this hillside lot. The following exceptions are requested and are addressed in these findings per the ALUO in this application: Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands per 18.3.10.090.E The applicant is requesting an exception to Section E. 2. D. \[Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet\] Required Findings addressing the following Ashland Land Use Ordinance Sections 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints-Hillside Severe Constraints 18.3.10.090.E Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands 18.3.10.100 Wildfire Lands 18.4.3.080.D Driveways and Turn-Around Design 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.4.8 Solar Access 18.4.8.020.C. Solar Setback Exceptions 18.5.5 Variance 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits 2 Total Page Number: 68 jnbhf!2!!.!!QSPQPTFE!OPSUI!FBTU!FMFWBUJPO! ! ! jnbhf!3!!.!!QSPQPTFE!TPVUI!FBTU!FMFWBUJPO! 3 Total Page Number: 69 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! jnbhf!4!!.!!QSPQPTFE!XFTU!FMFWBUJPO! FINDINGS OF FACT ADDRESSING THE ASHLAND LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Chapter 18.2.4 GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR BASE ZONES 18.2.4.010 Access and Minimum Street Frontage Each lot shall abut a public street other than an alley for a width of not less than 40 feet; except, where a lot is part of an approved flag partition or abuts a cul-de-sac vehicle turn- around area, the minimum width is 25 feet. Complies: The lot is a pre-existing legal lot of record that does not abut a public street. The lot has existing, legal access via driveway easement from Granite St. Chapter 18.2.5 STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES 18.2.5.030 Unified Standards for Residential Zones This property is in a residential zone (RR-.5) with a proposed single-family home on 2.18 acres and complies with all set back requirements for the front, side, and rear. 4 Total Page Number: 70 Chapter 18.3.10 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.3.10.050 Approval Criteria Through the application of the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, the oversight of a geotechnical expert, a civil engineer and a structural engineer, implementation of the erosion control plan, and tree protection/preservation, wildfire fuels management, potential adverse impacts have been minimized. The home is situated in a manner that minimizes hillside disturbance by limiting cuts and fill for construction. The area of site disturbance has been limited through the creation of a small area in comparison to the size of the property that is for development of the home, the yard area and pool and the driveway. Potential impacts to the property and the nearby area have been considered and through the considerate design and layout, adverse impacts have been minimized. The proposed residence and minimal outdoor area substantially exceed all required setbacks in the zone which reduces potential impacts to the nearby area and reduces the visual impacts of the new construction. At the same time, the area of development of the 2.18-acre site is in the area nearest the location of the vehicular access and the area of development substantially retains the majority of the large area property in an undeveloped state. The construction of a single-story residence with a basement reduces the building height and visual impacts to adjacent properties. The structure and driveway are cut into the hillside with the lower levels utilized to support the upper story and provide for an outdoor living area without creating a large, flat pad. The positioning, roofline style, generally low profile considering the steepness of the property and reduces the visual impacts. The proposed residence utilizes low pitch roofs with walk-out decks onto the floor below. This reduces the building height and mass, limiting impacts to nearby areas. The residence is cut into the hillslope without the use of substantial amounts of fill. The proposed development minimizes fire hazard through the implementation of a fire management plan, minimizes slope failure through the implementation of appropriate drainage and retaining wall construction, and feasible storm water management through proper drainage and conveyance through the property and utility easements to the City Storm water system. The proposed development preserves and protects the rural residential characteristics of the property and the surrounding properties. The proposed development has stepped, structural retaining walls to lessen the impact of a structure on the lot through the use of terracing, and erosion control plant materials. The project design team including the geotechnical expert, the landscape architect, the civil engineer, and contractor have constructed upon Ashland's hillside properties 5 Total Page Number: 71 numerous times. All potential hazards, including erosion from the hillside, wildfire hazards, and reduced impacts to the developed residential area were all considered and anticipated in the development of the property. Erosion control systems utilizing the installation of silt fencing and stormwater drainage consistent with the recommendations of the report from Rick Swanson, P.E., Marquess & Associates. The building plans, erosion control, retaining wall design, and proposed stormwater have been reviewed by Rick Swanson, P.E., Marquess, and Associates, who finds that the proposed site development will not create any hazards. There are no known hazards in the development area or immediately adjacent. There is no evidence of surface water or seepage, scarring or other evidence of landslides or slope failure on the subject property. The foundation will be structurally engineered, and the geotechnical expert will provide periodic inspections of the site to verify the development requirements are being complied with. Erosion control silt fencing is proposed along the east side of the development area and track-out prevention pad will be provided at the entrance of the driveway with the shared driveway to limit impacts to the shared driveway system accessing the property. All erosion control measures will remain in place throughout the duration of the site work portions of construction. The tree protection fencing will remain in place throughout the duration of construction or until the exterior of the structure is completed and no additional site disturbance is occurring. The trees proposed for removal are requested to be removed to allow for the development of the driveway, the residence and within the associated development area. The trees proposed for removal are also to implement a wildfire fuel reduction plan which increases safety to the adjacent properties. The proposal incorporates a cut foundation, with structural retention of all areas of cut and fill. The structure is less than 35-feet above natural grade. The general contractor is skilled at developing steep hillside lots. The driveway and home construction is proposed to follow the direction and guidance of the geotechnical expert. The structurally engineered single-family residence and the associated site development has taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impact to the environment. 6 Total Page Number: 72 The site is heavily treed reduction of fuel loads in the wildfire land overlay and the protection of healthy, preservable trees reducing adverse impacts. Adequate fire truck apparatus access is proposed. There will be residential sprinklers, and a nearby property private fire hydrant is present within the neighborhood accessed on the private driveway. The property owners have proposed a small outdoor pool area that can provide emergency firefighting water outflow. The proposed fire safety measures demonstrate all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. The building pad area is the minimum area of the site to allow for the construction of a single story with basement home, driveway access and small outdoor space. There is not a large yard area or lawn area proposed on the hillside slopes. Flag lots require a 20 x 20 yard area free of vehicle parking area and buildings. A small lap pool is proposed within the only outdoor area. Pools are not prohibited. More than 50 percent of the area x where the total pool area x is proposed is situated on existing grade slopes of less than 25 percent. The area of the pool is within the areas of least slope and the majority of the pool area is on slopes of less than 25 percent. The placement of the pool within an area of least slope reduces adverse impacts, potential hazards and limits the amount of hillside disturbance. The pool area is within the area of excavation for the construction of the house and the most viable contractor staging area during the construction of the residence. Because the area will be disturbed to allow for construction and in the place of the removed topsoil, it is logical to be used as an outdoor area and a small pool area. The area of excavation and site disturbance will not be falsely reconstructed as hillside will fill that requires substantial retaining walls to build back the slope. The pool walls are engineered limiting potential hazards to the property and nearby areas. The pool and outdoor area are proposed within the area of disturbance for the residence and provides the minimum outdoor area required for flag lots. The proposed site disturbance is substantially less than allowed. There is only 18,738 SF of disturbance proposed on the 94,960.8 SF area lot which maintains 80 percent (75,969 SF) in natural state which is substantially greater than the minimum percentage required. The removal of the minimum amount of hillside soil to allow for the construction of the home, driveway, terrace and pool area is the minimum amount of disturbance and substantially less than the allowed areas of disturbance on the property. The staff advisor or the commission can find that considering the existing development of the surrounding area and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance, the applicant 7 Total Page Number: 73 has taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts to adjacent properties and more than 80 percent of the site will remain in a natural state. 18.3.10.060 Land Classifications B. Hillside Lands. This property falls under the Hillside Lands category, it is identified in the hillside lands overlay map and contains slopes greater than 25 percent throughout the site. C. Wildfire Lands. This property is classified as Wildfire Lands by city of Ashland maps. 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands A. General Requirements. 1. Buildable Area. Alldevelopmentshalloccuronlandsdefinedashavingbuildablearea. Slopesgreaterthan35percentshallbeconsideredunbuildableexceptasallowedbelow. Exceptionsmaybegrantedtothisrequirementonlyasprovidedinsubsection18.3.10.090.H. There are no slopes of greater than 35 percent within the areas of proposed development. 2. Building Envelope. The building envelope has an average 27 percent slope and is located in the gentlest slopes on the property, and closest location to the flag portion of the lot to further minimize lot disturbance. 3. New Streets and Driveways. The existing access is via a driveway due to the length of the driveway being more than 50 feet in length. The proposal is to extend this driveway up the flag portion of the lot which has average slopes 23 percent. The driveway grade requires a variance to exceed 15 percent and exceed 18 percent. This is due to the pre-existing driveway location and grade that the subject property attaches too. See additional variance findings. 4. Geotechnical Studies. The proposed development is not a subdivision or partition and a geotechnical study is not required. B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as Hillside shall provide plans conforming to the following items: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage and erosion control plans will be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer. Eric (Rick) Swanson, P.E., Marquess & Associates has reviewed 8 Total Page Number: 74 the site and the proposed development and has found the proposal, and the site are suitable for development. 2. Timing of Improvements. This is a single-family home and does not have to comply with timing of standards. 3. Retention in Natural State. The average slope on this property is 27 percent Total lot size: 2.18 acre = 94,961 SF 25 percent of the total lot area = 23,7402.5 SF 25 + 27 = 52 percent of the total lot area Required total natural state is 52 percent - 49,379.72 SF The total area being affected by grading and other disturbance is 18,738 SF, therefore maintaining 80 percent (75,969 SF) in natural state which is substantially greater than the minimum percentage required. 4. Grading Cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. All cut slopes are contained by a segmental retaining wall system. b. There will be no exposed cut slopes on this project. c. The structure is cut into the hillside which reduces the visual bulk. The proposed house has a very low profile that is cut into the hill and is not perched high on the property. This was a response to the slopes and to limit the impacts on the topography and the large-stature trees. The home is surrounded by a dense forest limiting visual 'bulk' impacts to adjacent properties. d. Revegetation of cut slope terraces includes the provision of a planting plan, introduction of topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation as necessary. Please see graphic submittal sheet L 2.0 5. Grading Fill. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Complies, Refer to L2.0 Grading Plan. There are no unretained fill slopes. b. Complies, Refer to L2.0 Grading Plan. All fill is retained with a vertical retaining wall. c. Complies, all utilities will take advantage of the driveway for access to the homesite and not within any fill slopes. 6. Revegetation Requirements. No un-retained fill slopes are proposed. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. 9 Total Page Number: 75 The landscaping will be maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners. The property was part of a larger parcel area that has been divided into smaller buildable lots with the last partition occurring in 1995, before January 1, 1998 date. 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage and erosion control will be designed based on standards designed by the project geo-technical expert to be reviewed and approved by said consultant as part of the approval process. Erosion control practices will be designed to minimize solids in runoff from disturbed areas and any track-out from the site. The stormwater facilities will be designed by a licensed civil engineer (Thornton Engineering) attached under separate submittal are the relevant findings, site observations, and recommendations, including those from the geotechnical report and stormwater management considerations. There are no hazardous areas or unstable portions of the site. The building pad area is the minimum area of the site to allow for the construction of a single story with basement home, driveway access and small outdoor space. There is not a large yard area or lawn area proposed on the hillside slopes. Flag lots require a 20X20 yard area free of vehicle parking area and buildings. Though a small lap pool is proposed, the proposed site disturbance is substantially less than allowed. Pools are not prohibited. The pool and outdoor area is proposed within the area of disturbance for the residence and provides the minimum outdoor area required for flag lots. There is only 18,738 SF of disturbance proposed on the 94,960.8 SF area lot which maintains 80 percent (75,969 SF) in natural state which is substantially greater than the minimum percentage required. 9. Inspections and Final Report. Periodic inspection of the property and construction consistent with the recommendations and conducted by the geotechnical engineer will be obtained. The final inspection report completed by the geotechnical expert will be provided prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage All the stormwater on the site is directed to surface drains and collection behind walls. The water is ultimately taken through the site to the storm water system on Granite Street. No water will travel over cut faces or fill areas. It is not feasible to install detention on this site due to steepness. As designed, this project will minimize erosion and storm flow increases to the greatest extent possible. The stormwater facilities will be designed by a licensed civil engineer (Thornton Engineering). 10 Total Page Number: 76 D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: An inventory of the site trees was conducted, there are hundreds of trees on the property. There are 75 trees six inches in diameter at breast height or larger in the area of construction disturbance. The predominate species are Douglas Fir, White Oak and Madrone. Eight (8) of the trees are dead. The trees were evaluated for health, structure, species, variety and size. wildfire safety and hazards removal, and removal due to the proposed access, retaining walls, and the approved and proposed building envelope area. The tree assessment retains most of the site slope stabilizing trees. The tree analysis identified the health of the trees and provided suggestions as to which trees should be removed. The property will remain heavily treed following the removal of the small diameter fuels, the dead trees and the trees in poor condition. Tree protection zones are included on the tree protection plan including preservation plans for tree conservation during construction. A six-foot chain-link fence is proposed to be installed according to the Tree Protection plan found on Sheet L 1.2. The fencing is proposed to be installed at grade and to remain in place throughout the duration of the project. The fenced tree protection zone will remain free of any construction disturbance. The project Landscape Architect or project Arborist will oversee any potential site disturbance within the tree protection zone. Please refer to provided graphic tree inventory, proposed removal and tree protection plan, sheets L0.1, L0.2 and L0.3. Tree Removal. Of the 75 trees in the vicinity of the area of disturbance, four (4) significant trees are proposed for removal, eight (8) dead trees and a total of 67 trees removed that are greater than six inches in diameter at breast height but less than 12 inches in diameter at breast height deciduous trees and less than 18 inches in diameter at breast height conifer trees. The other significant trees are incorporated into the project design. The trees that are proposed for removal is because they are within the building envelope/footprint. Many of the trees proposed for removal are within the proposed driveway or within the identified area of disturbance. 11 Total Page Number: 77 Of the 75 trees in the vicinity of the area of disturbance, there are 67 trees greater than in diameter at breast height proposed for removal. Of the 67 trees proposed for removal, only four (4) significant trees are proposed for removal. The other tree proposed for removal include eight (8) Douglas Fir trees in poor condition that are smaller than 18 inches in diameter at breast height, fourteen (14) Douglas Fir trees in poor condition that are smaller than 18 inches in diameter at breast height. There is a five stem Madrone each stem is greater than 18 inches in diameter at breast height; two multi-stem oak trees with one stem each greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height that are in good health proposed for removal. As noted above, the trees proposed for removal are largely within the driveway area or within the area of disturbance for the home construction. The trees proposed for removal will not have a significant impact on the erosion, soil stability or flow of waters. There are four (4) significant trees proposed for removal. These include a five-stem Madrone, a five stem Oregon white Oak, a three stem Oregon white Oak and a 12 inch in diameter at breast height Oregon white oak. The proposed mitigation trees are deciduous and there are no replacement conifers proposed. E. Building Location and Design Standards. 1. Building Envelopes. a. The building envelope shall contain a buildable area with a slope of 35 percent or less. There are no slopes of greater than 35 percent within the areas of proposed development. b. Building envelopes and lot design shall address the retention of a percentage of the lot in a natural state as required in subsection 18.3.10.090.B.3. The average slope on this property is 27 percent Total lot size: 2.18 acre = 94,961 SF 25 percent of the total lot area = 23,7402.5 SF 25 + 27 = 52 percent of the total lot area Required total natural state is 52 percent - 49,379.72 SF The total area being affected by grading and other disturbance is 18,738 SF, therefore maintaining 80 percent (75,969 SF) in natural state which is substantially greater than the minimum percentage required. 12 Total Page Number: 78 c. Building envelopes shall be designed and located to maximize tree conservation as required in subsection 18.3.10.090.D.3 while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. An inventory of the site trees was conducted and there are hundreds of trees on the property. There are 75 trees six inches in diameter at breast height or larger in the area of construction disturbance. The predominate species are Douglas Fir, White Oak and Madrone. Eight (8) of the trees are dead. The trees were evaluated for health, structure, species, variety and size. wildfire safety and hazards removal, and removal due to the proposed access, retaining walls, and the approved and proposed building envelope area. The tree assessment retains most of the site slope stabilizing trees. The tree analysis identified the health of the trees and provided suggestions as to which trees should be removed. There are 67 of the 75 trees in the area of construction development proposed for removal. Of those eight are dead and only four of the 67 trees are significant trees. The property will remain heavily treed following the removal of the small diameter fuels, the dead trees and the trees in poor condition. Tree protection zones are included on the tree protection plan including preservation plans for tree conservation during construction. d. It is recommended that building envelope locations should be located to avoid ridgeline exposures, and designed such that the roofline of a building within the envelope does not project above the ridgeline as illustrated in Figure 18.3.10.090.E.1.d. Not applicable. 2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques, buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the designated Historic District, shall incorporate the following into the building design and indicate features on required building permits: a.The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from the natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard, or other feature perpendicular to that grade. Maximum hillside building height shall be 35 feet. See Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.a.i and Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.a.ii Complies maximum height is - refer to Sheet A2.1 b.Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. The structure is cut into the hillside to the greatest extent possible. The proposed building design limits the amount of cut to the area nearest the location of the driveway. The driveway location and grade determine the location of the garage and entrance to the residence. 13 Total Page Number: 79 i. Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the structure to more closely follow the slope. Complies stepped footings are proposed are proposed within the southern portion of the residence that addresses the natural swale to the south. Per section 18.3.10.090.B.4. findings the residence has an average 36 foot width of structure along the east/west axis (perpendicular to the slope). This width in combination of the structure cut into the hillside, and limited vehicular access on the north end prohibits stepped footings. ii. Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope. Complies. The building mass is cut into the hillside with approximatly 40 percent of the structure cut into the natural slope - refer to Sheets A2.1 and A2.2. c.A building step-back shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20 feet in height, as measured above natural grade. Step-backs shall be a minimum of six feet. Decks projecting out from the building wall and hillside shall not be considered a building step-back. No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. See Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.c. Complies. The maximum wall height is - on east (downhill) elevation refer to Sheet A2.1 for height dimension of wall to existing natural grade. Spot elevations and other referenced dimensions above 20 in height refer to top of roof heights to finished grade. d.Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet. See Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.d. The building has horizontal building planes that are divided into smaller masses. The façade of the structure on the downhill (east) side is divided into four distinct sections. Of those, the southern half requires an exception because the total wall length is 39 feet with a four-foot offset. The other half of the building has offsets of six feet. The south wall has a total plane length of 44 feet with a five foot off-set. Refer to section H (Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands) e.It is recommended that roof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill elevations should be avoided; however, smaller gables may be permitted. See Figure 18.3.10.090.E.2.c. While the roof on this modern design has the majority of the roof flat. The clerestory and the extended soffit s to landscape walls and landscape retaining walls the proposed building mass and scale expresses the irregularity on the hillside. In view with the staggered wall and varied eave overhangs the structure is broken up to appear as segmented building components meeting the intent of this section. 14 Total Page Number: 80 Additionally, with the structure cut into the hillside, the mass and the rooflines are further minimized with the natural grade of the surrounding hillside being higher than the proposed residence. There are no large gables and the flat roof does not project upwards of the house to increase height and mass. Refer to image 1 and image 2 on previous pages.There are 4ft to 5ft stepbacks in the structure below the linear roof and material changes within these stepbacks. This complies with the intent of the ordinance that seeks to break up the mass of the structure into smaller building components to reflect the irregular form of the hillside. The lot is one long consistent linear hill with rock outcroppings, and the proposed structure has differentiated masses to mimic smaller masses. f.It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor space for upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in excess of 12 feet on downhill elevations should be avoided. The lower floor level is used as a deck for a portion of the residence. The only overhang is also the eave of the roof of the floor below. There are no vertical supports. g.It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment. Neutral colors found in the surrounding landscape that minimize contrast between the natural environment and the structure will be used on the exterior paint. F.All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. The foundation of the structure will be designed by an engineer and reviewed by the project geotechnical expert. G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include building envelopes containing a buildable area less than 35 percent slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is to provide open space or for conservation purposes. Not applicable H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5, Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria: 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 15 Total Page Number: 81 The applicant is requesting an exception to Section E. 2. D. \[Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet\] The proposed residence has horizontal building planes that are divided into smaller masses. The façade of the structure on the downhill (east) side is divided into four distinct sections. The entire horizontal building plane of 83 feet is a combination of five different planes. The first to planes from the north corner to the first six foot offset is 22 ft. 3 inches the second section is 16 feet. This leads to a six-foot offset on the north side that is reduced to four feet on the south side. The next two sections comprise a16 ft 9in section and 22 ft 3in section, the southern half requires an exception because the total wall length is 39 feet with a four-foot offset. The south wall has a total plane length of 44 feet with a five foot off-set. (Refer to east wall line and south wall line on Sheet A1.1 Main Floor plan and to image 1 and image 2 on previous pages. A reasonable number of offsets and variation of depth in the design technique of the offsets meet the intent of the hillside standards to provide variation and interest on the minimally visible façade on the approach to the residence. The difficulty in meeting this requirement is due to the unique ravine/drainage to the south and the publicly used trail alongside the Talent Irrigation Ditch to the west. The property is steeper to the south and west. The project has been designed to fit within these constraints and in particular within the east to west topography of the site. The floor level entries and constraints improve the site design and its relationship to both the main floor and the lower floors relationship to the ravine. The property existed prior to the hillside design standards and unlike the other homes in the immediate vicinity that are built up taller with large gables, the design sets the home into the hillside to minimize the mass and the scale. The exception allows for the best integration of the yard and the existing topography. The proposed structure is more than 220-feet from the south property line and more than 31 feet from the east property line and more than 190 feet from the adjacent residence to the east. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. The project has been designed to fit within these constraints and in particular within the east to west topography. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques, the buildings on the steep hillside lands have longer planes to reduce cutting horizontally and vertically. The areas where the wall is more than 36-feet are in the areas of least visual impacts to adjacent properties and the impact from the horizontal planes is reduced and provides greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 16 Total Page Number: 82 The request of the six foot offset of the east wall plan to be four feet and a five foot offset on the southern plane is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10, Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section 18.3.10.090, Development Standards for Hillside Lands. (Ord. 3199 § 18, amended, 06/15/2021; Ord. 3191 § 18, amended, 11/17/2020; Ord. 3158 § 4, amended, 09/18/2018) The proposed step backs of the wall planes minimizes alteration of the area of natural slope retention and protects the topographic character and integrity of the hillside lands. The proposal reduces the amount of cutting, scarring and when considering the difficulty of constructing in the neighborhood, the proposal is sensitive to the adjacent properties and the impacts of construction by locating the residence on the lesser slopes of the property The exceptions allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city on a challenging site. The requested exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter. The proposed site development provides for safe, orderly, and beneficial development of a 2.18 acre single family lot. The property includes significant natural features characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features. The proposed development though impactful due to the steepness of the property and the long vacant lot accessed via a non-conforming driveway, limits alteration of topography and reduces encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment. Where only 52 percent of the site is required to be maintained in a natural state, the proposal retains 80 percent of the site in a natural state. The proposal provides for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features and preserves the largest stature, significant trees, reduces wildfire risks and provides additional protections of a large acre parcel.The proposed residence is designed to have a minimal impact on the topography of the site. By substantially limiting the amount of disturbance (80 percent of the site preserved in a natural state vs. the allowed 50 percent disturbance), the encroachment upon the natural environment preserves the site's physiographic conditions including the limits on slope disturbance, limited development of the forested site, and retention of many of the sites significant trees and natural vegetation outside the building footprint and fuel reduction zone. The applicant has taken all reasonable steps to design a home that will not have adverse impacts on the environment when considering the existing development of the surrounding area and the maximum development of this site as allowed by the ordinance. 17 Total Page Number: 83 18.3.10.100 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands A Wildfire Prevention and Control plan has been provided with this application, please see sheet L 1.1 Compliance with the development standards for wildfire lands will be implemented on-site prior to the introduction of combustible construction materials. Areas of heavy vegetation are proposed to be thinned to reduce the fuel load on the lower portion of the property. All dead and dying trees are proposed for removal. The number of trees proposed for planting on the site is sufficient for erosion control but does not increase fuel load and tree densities in the wildfire overlay. Please refer to architectural plans for appropriate building specifications to this ordinance requirement. Stucco, metal and fire resistant materials are proposed for the exterior of the building. Fire suppression will be provided within the dwelling. Per ORSC R327.4 Wildfire Hazard Mitigation requirements, Exterior patios and porch ceilings, floor projections (N/A), Enclosed roof eaves, soffits will comply with requirements for noncombustible material or ignition resistant materials or with 1 layer of Type X exterior gypboard. Please refer to the City of Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Plan Submittal Form submitted in this application for intended materials to meet compliance. The applicant requests a deferred submittal for exact specifications. The following excerpts from ALUO chapter 18.3.10.100 is provided as reference and specifications for compliance. The applicable fire prevention measures will be provided in the final application on the Landscape design plans. Dead and dying vegetation will be removed Refer to Sheet L0.2 and L0.3 Vegetation within 40 feet of the building will be wildfire resistant plant species. Existing prohibited flammable plant material will be removed, refer to L0.2 and L0.3 No combustible materials will be located within 5 feet of the new building. Mulch is specified as decomposed granite. Existing trees are being removed within 20 feet of the building. The closest flammable existing tree to the new home has a tree canopy that terminates 17 feet horizontal distance away from the building roof. Proposed trees focus on dwarf and compact varieties, refer to L3.0 Existing flammable trees within 100 feet of the building will be pruned to 8 feet above the ground or one-third tree height. 18 Total Page Number: 84 Proposed shrubs are low flammable species, refer to L3.0 Proposed vegetation beneath existing tree canopies is limited to grasses & forbs and low- growing shrubs. No vegetation from the prohibited plan list are proposed, refer to L3. Proposed fencing is of metal construction only. PARKING, ACCESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location. The three parking spaces for this home are located within the garage. There are two exterior parking bays, one for guests and a hammerhead bay for maneuvering. The driveway to access this project is 15 feet wide with 12 foot paved width throughout. The access easement is 15 feet wide and trees within the easement will be limbed up to provide 13.5 foot of vertical clearance throughout the driveway length. 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection A. Tree Protection Plan. A tree protection plan shall be approved by the Staff Advisor concurrent with applications for Type I, Type II, and Type III planning actions. If tree removal is proposed, a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to chapter 18.5.7 may be required. B. Tree Protection Plan Submission Requirements. In order to obtain approval of a tree protection plan, an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees tobe preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: These measures will be specified and will be provided with a graphic response in the Landscape design plans Sheets L0.1,L.02, L.03 C. Tree Protection Measures Required. These measures will be specified and will be provided with a graphic response in the Landscape design plans Sheet L0.1 D. Inspection. A tree protect removal plan shall be requested prior to commencing with any work other than the installation of the erosion control measure. Chapter 18.4.8 SOLAR ACCESS The project is designed to conform to solar setback A and meets all the required standards for this category. Height of roof 23 19 Total Page Number: 85 Type, slope of roof 1/2:12 slope Setback standard Table A Setback required per standard (2234.33(-) 2217.00) = 17.33(-)6/ (.432) = 26- SSB REQUIRED (34- PROVIDED) (2234.33(-) 2210.50) = 23.83(-)6/ (.432) = 41- SSB REQUIRED (43- PROVIDED) **AVG. 150SLOPE TO NORTH IS (2269-2272= +3) (2189-2182=-7) (+3(+)-7/2=-2/150= (-.013 slope) **AVG NORTH/SOUTH LOT DIMENSION = 313.13 \[.445+(-.013) =.432\] FORMULA 1 (30/ .432) = 69.44(IF<313.13= STD A(-6) Chapter 18.5.5 VARIANCE A Variance to the driveway grade in excess of 15 percent and not more than 18 percent from the Flag Driveway Standards (18.5.3.060.F.) is necessary. The flag drive within the x access to the site is proposed to be 15 feet wide and currently unpaved and proposed to be paved within the existing access easement. Where this access easement ends this flag portion of the lot has many trees and every effort will be made to avoid the trees. The average slope of the existing grade is 27 percent with no feasible areafor mitigating the grade slope with turns or curves within the width of property (within the flagpole access to the property). 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 variance to maximum driveway grades is necessary. The existing driveway that the lot has historic, legal access to from Granite Street is in excess of 15 percent grade and is a legal, non-conforming situation. The proposed driveway upon the subject property where undeveloped is in excess of the maximum 15 percent grade and in excess of the allowed upto 18 percent grade for not more than 200-feet as allowed with a Type I Variance (AMC 18.5.3.060.F). Refer to sheet AS1.0 for the dimension of the driveway The grade of the existing driveway and proposed driveway grade are due to the topography of the properties between the subject property and Granite Street. The grade of the existing driveway determines the connection of the proposed driveway. The driveway upon the subject property where this variance applies is due to the site topography. The lot has a narrow strip of land within which the driveway will be located. The driveway cannot 20 Total Page Number: 86 switchback outside of the property boundaries due to lack of easement and the existing retaining walls and other physical features that below to adjacent property owners. The shape of the lot and the topography of the lot and the surrounding natural features are unique physical constraints that create the difficulty in meeting the driveway grade standards. When the lot was originally created in the early 1900, the code provisions at the time appeared to not address driveway grades. In 1990 (ORD 2604) language was added speaking to driveway grades, this language was amended in 1993 (ORD 2663) and reads the same today. Additionally, the language regulating driveway grades was not found in the pre-1990 ordinances. Though the lot was last partitioned in 1995, access was implied from the existing driveway and the grade of the driveway and number of lots taking access from the driveway do not appear to have been accounted for. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. The proposed residence has legal access to the existing, non-conforming driveway. Allowing access and the variance to driveway grade is the minimum necessary to address the unique physical circumstances related to the subject property. Access is not available from another driveway in the vicinity. The adjacent properties to the northwest are accessed via a private driveway that extends to Stawberry Lane. These lots were part of a property line adjustment between three lots, the maximum number allowedto be served via a private driveway (PA90-008). Because of the legal access to the driveway accessing the property from Granite Street, it is not necessary or possible to create an alternative variance situation. 3. The 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 proposal allows for the construction of a residence on a legal lot of record. The benefits allow for use of the property and the variance to the driveway is necessitated by the slope of the property and the grade of the existing driveway which this driveway connects too. There are no negative impacts from the proposed driveway grade upon the adjacent properties because the adjacent properties have driveway access from the shared driveway. The proposal has been reviewed by Mark Shay, Fire Marshal, Ashland Fire and Rescue and he is aware of the pre-existing, legal lot of record being accessed from an existing driveway system that does not comply with the standards. The proposed residence will have a fire suppression system which mitigates the negatives from the steep driveway. 21 Total Page Number: 87 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 subject property is a portion of a parent tract that was owned by the Clary family. Through a series of partitions and property line adjustments prior to 1995, the resulting property was created in its current form. The Clary property through divisions and deed transfers created the property and those that take access from the shared driveway. Additionally, the subject property is more steep to the north and west creating further difficulties with achieving driveway grade. The slope of the existing driveway is a pre-existing legal non-conforming grade. The proposed residence and the grade of the driveway that allows for access to a residential dwelling situated in the northeast corner of the property at a minimum distance to allow the development of a residential dwelling and the resulting driveway grade which is in excess of 15 percent grade is not a self-imposed situation. The property is a legal lot of record with legal access that were created prior to the standards that limit driveway grades. The property owner did not self impose this situation. The only way to access any home on the site is with a variance to driveway grade. 22 Total Page Number: 88 Z B X F W J S E ! U G ! 8 : 2 Total Page Number: 89 Total Page Number: 90 Total Page Number: 91 Total Page Number: 92 Total Page Number: 93 Total Page Number: 94 Total Page Number: 95 Total Page Number: 96 Total Page Number: 97 Total Page Number: 98 QSPQFSUZ!MJOF 21(!SFBS!TFUCBDL Btimboe-!PS!:8631 652/326/5575 tifmczAtdibsfoeftjhotuvejp/dpn 7(!TJEF!TFUCBDL 26(!GSPOU!TFUCBDL26(!GSPOU!TFUCBDL 21(!QPPM!TFUCBDL-!IJMMTJEF!MBOET QSPQFSUZ!MJOF CFS!!3135 M3/2 FYJTUJOH TMPQF BOBMZTJT O QSFMJNJOBSZ OPU!GPS!DPOTUSVDUJPO 131(51( TJUF!TMPQF!BOBMZTJT 2 TDBMF;!!2#!>!31( Total Page Number: 99 Total Page Number: 100 Total Page Number: 101 Total Page Number: 102 Total Page Number: 103 Total Page Number: 104 Total Page Number: 105 Total Page Number: 106 Total Page Number: 107 Total Page Number: 108 Total Page Number: 109 Total Page Number: 110 Total Page Number: 111 Total Page Number: 112