HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-08 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to
speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public
Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 8, 2022
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM,via Zoom
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.December 14, 2021 Regular Meeting
2.January 25, 2022 Study Session
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T2-2022-00036
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
329 GraniteSt
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Rogue Planning Services for Clarke
DESCRIPTION:
Anapplicationfor a PhysicalandEnvironmentalconstraintsreviewpermit(P&E)forthe
constructionof a newsingle-familyresidentialhomeonhillsidelandswithsevereconstraintsforthe
vacantparcelat329granitestreet.TheapplicationfortheP&Eincludes a requestforsixdifferent
exceptionstothedevelopmentstandards.Thedevelopmentalsorequires a limitedactivityanduses
permitintheWaterResourceProtectionZone(WRPZ)for a drivewaycrossinganidentifiedwaterway,
twovariancesforanallowanceofthemaximumgradeof a drivewayandanallowancetoexceedthe
maximumlotcoverage,andfinally a treeremovalpermitfortheremovalofnineteensignificant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING: MAP:
trees.Woodland / LDR; WR / RR-.5; 39 1E
TAX LOT:
08 EE,704
B.PLANNING ACTION:
PA-T2-2021-00031
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
375 & 475 East Nevada Street
APPLICANT:
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
OWNERS:
Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000),David Young (owner, 475
E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300)
DESCRIPTION:
A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of
Ashland’s Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The
application asserts that there are differences in the UGB’s location between the official paper maps and
the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original maps’ scales were
such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear
that the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Ashland’s Urban Growth
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-9200), or by email at
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting willenable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to
speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public
Hearing is closed.
Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan
PLEASE NOTE
(2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). : The “1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban
Growth Boundary Agreement” also requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the
Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson CountyBoard of
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commissioners.Single Family Residential Reserve & North
ZONING: MAP: TAX LOT #:
Mountain;RR-.5 & NM-MF;39 1E 04A;1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-9200), or by email at
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting willenable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Minutes
December 14, 2021
I.CALL TO ORDER:7:01PMvia Zoom
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Roger Pearce Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
Lisa VernerPaula Hyatt(Absent)
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Norton informed the Commission that per the applicant’s request, the public hearing forPA-T2-2021-00035has been
postponed untiltheFebruary 8, 2022Planning Commission meeting.
CommunityDevelopmentDirectorBillMolnarmadethefollowingannouncements:
Mr. Molnar thanked Planning Manager Maria Harris for her years of service to the City of Ashland. She will be retiring
at the beginning of January 2022.
At the City Council Business Meeting held on December 7, 2021, the City Council unanimously approved the
Planning Commission’s proposed Annexation Code changes with a minorlanguageadjustment.
The Planning Commission will not hold a Study Session on December 28 and will reconvenein January.
Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission that a preliminarypre-application for development of the Croman Mill Site had
been received and the applicants were considering changes to the plans that would likelyrequire a legislative
amendment to move forward.The applicants plan to comebefore the Planning Commission and discuss the plans
furtherand are also planning a public outreach event in January to communicate directly with the public.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.November 23,2021Study Session
CommissionersPearce/KenCairn m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 5-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM–None
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2021-00159, 329 Granite.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 14, 2021
Page 1 of 4
Ex Parte Contact:
CommissionerKenCairn notedthatshe is part of the design team for this project.
CommissionersPearce/Thompsonm/s to approve the Findings for PA-T1-2021-00159. Voice Vote: Commissioners
Pearce, Thompson, Dawkins, and Norton, YES. Commissioner KenCairn abstained. Motion passed 4-0.
B.Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2021-00158, 351 Walker.
Ex Parte Contact:
No ex parte contact was reported.
Deliberations and Decision
CommissionerPearce commended theStaff’s findingsbut expresseda concern that theydid not adequately address the
appellants main point of contention, mainly the potential property devaluation caused by the view of the proposed cellular tower.
He stated that the Staff’s position thatthis concernwas outside the scope of the Commissionwasnotconveyed clearlyin the
findingsand proposed the following language: “Appellant’s evidence regarding adverse effects to livability were focused on
concerns about the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from the proposed
cellular facility.As discussed below,the consideration of those types of concerns are preempted by federal law and may not be
considered by the Planning Commission.”
Commissioner Thompson also suggested an edit to the Findings for clarity. On page 8in the second paragraph, three specific
points are listed but points two and three are not enumerated. CommissionerThompsonrequestedthat these be more clearly
marked.
CommissionersPearce/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T1-2021-00158withthe statedamendments. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
C.Review of Draft Findings for PA-L-2021-00012.
CommissionersPearce/Thompsonm/s to approve the Findings for PA-L-2021-00012. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 5-0.
VI.LEGISLATIVE HEARING:
A.PLANNING ACTION: #PA-L-2021-00013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:AMC 18.2.3 Special Use Standards
AMC 18.2.6Standards for Non-Residential Zones
AMC 18.3.13 Residential Overlay
REQUEST:The proposal includes a series of amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18
Land Use to the residential standards for mixed-use development in the Commercial (C-1) and Employment
(E-1) zones.
Chair Norton reminded the Commission that its role isto makea recommendation to the City Council,who willthenmake a final
decision regarding theamendment to the Ashland Municipal Code.
Ms. Harris provided a presentation for the Commissionthat detailed the core change in the proposed ordinance, that mixed use
buildings could be65% residential on the ground floor (up from 35%) if they meet three criteria: 1) are two or more stories, 2)are
less than ten acres in size,and3) are located outside of the Downtown Design Standards overlay.Ms. Harris explained that other
proposals had been made, including temporarily allowing up 100% Residential withinthe E-1 zones, but found that such a change
would be difficult to enforce.After consultation with the Departmentof Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) it was
decided that this would alsoconstitute a significant change and require anupdate to theEconomic Opportunity Analysis.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 14, 2021
Page 2 of 4
Another proposed amendment would remove residential density limitations to encourage the construction of smaller and more
affordable housing over larger and more expensive buildings (See attachment #1).Ms. Harris did suggest one change to her
proposal, which was an issue brought to her attention by Commissioner Thompson. Under the current amendment the shift in the
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)standards would be applied too broadly, so staff suggested removing the FAR standards from non-
residential land before moving forward. With that amendment in mind, Ms. Harris recommended the Commission approve the
ordinance andforward it to the City Council for review.Commissioner Thompson asked for additional clarification regarding the
new proposed FAR standards and was concerned that they would apply unintended restrictions on smaller buildings.Ms. Harris
assured her that smaller buildings would not be affected by the FAR changes, and that a restraint wouldin fact be removed.
Commissioners Pearce/Thompson m/s to recommend amendments under PA-2021-00013 to the City Counciland include
staff’s recommendation to amend table to FAR standard.Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce,
Thompson, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
VII.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T2-2021-00035
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 233 Granite
OWNER/APPLICANT: Heidi Leverenz
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition to split a 1.08 acre property into two parcels. The application indicates
that the two resultant parcels will include a 0.34 acre parcel which contains the existing residence, and a 0.73 acre
parcel situated to the south and accessed by a flag drive. The request includes a variance to the number of lots
accessed from the private driveway and an exception to street standards to not install sidewalks to current
standards where there are existing curbside sidewalk improvements. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; MAP: 39 1E 08 DA; TAX LOT: 1300.
Chair Norton reiterated that PA-T2-2021-00035, 233 Granite St. would not be heard tonight and requested the Commission
continue the public hearing to February 8, 2022.
CommissionersDawkins/KenCairn m/s to continuethepublic hearing to February 8, 2022. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 5-0.
B.SUBJECT PROPERTY: Public Right-of-Way adjacent to 39 1E 05AD Tax Lot #502
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland Public Works Department
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider a request to vacate a portion of the Otis Street right-
of-way north of Map 39 1E 05AD Tax Lot #502 near 388 Otis Street and make a recommendation to the City
Council. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5-P;
ASSESSOR’S MAP/TAX LOT: 39 1E 05AD Tax Lot #502.
Senior Planner DerekSeverson provided a presentation on the request to vacate a portion of Otis St.due to thecul-de-sac
existing on anowthrough-road.He stated staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) the applicant be
required to install a new continuous curb, 2) adequate right-of-way or a public pedestrian access easement to support future
curbside sidewalk installation should be retained, and 3) the applicant sign-in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for future
street improvements(See attachment #2). With these considerations Staffrecommended the Commission recommend approval
to the City Council.
Commissioner Thompson asked if there was a sidewalk that would connect from the opposite side of the cul-de-sac, to which Mr.
Severson replied that there was not. He elaborated that the section in question was not part of the West Village subdivisionand
thata sidewalkwould not be required at this stage unless the City Council believed it merited one. He added that there are
currently trees and other obstructions that would need to be addressed before a sidewalk could be installed.
CommissionersPearce/KenCairnm/storecommend Council’s approvaloftherequesttovacate388Otiswiththe
conditionsrecommendedby Staff.VoiceVote: all AYES.Motionpassed 5-0.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 14, 2021
Page 3 of 4
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
Chair Norton referenced the annual report given to the City Councilon December 7, 2021whichdescribedthe work that the
Community Development Department and the Planning Commission did throughout thepastyear. Alsooutlinedin the reportwere
future plans for the Housing Production Strategy meeting and the Croman Mill sitedevelopment.Chair Norton asked that Mr.
Molnar distributethereport withthe Planning Commissionmeetingpacket for January 11, 2022.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldmaninformed the Commission that the applicants for the proposed Croman Mill site development
intendonholdinga public open houseprior to the January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Study Sessionwhere they will be
presenting their concepts to the Planning Commission.This would be to gatherfeedback from neighbors and the public at large
before the applicants come before the Commission with a formal application. The Commission briefly considered attending the
open house but decided against it to avoidunintentionallyachieving a quorum outside a Commission meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 8:04p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
December 14, 2021
Page 4 of 4
One Change Proposed
o
o
4± ²¨³ 4±¨ ¦«¤ /µ¤±« ¸ ȟ®¢§ ¦¤
)²¨£¤ ³§¤ $$3 ®µ¤±« ¸ ȟ® ¢§ ¦¤
Other Amendments
Recommended Revision
Existing Standard for Detail Site Review Overlay
Next Steps
December 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Attachment #2
December 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Attachment #2
December 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Attachment #2
December 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Attachment #2
December 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Attachment #2
December 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Attachment #2
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
DraftMinutes
January 25, 2022
I.CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM,viaZoom
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager
Roger Pearce Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn Thompson April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Lisa VernerMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements:
Atthe January 4, 2022 City Council meeting Staff provided an update to the Council regardingthe work done by
the Planning Commission in developing the ordinance to create more housing in E-1 and C-1 zones.The City
Council will hold its first public hearing on the ordinance at the February 1, 2022 meeting.
Staff had a preliminary meeting for the Housing Production Strategy which examined various strategies that the
City of Ashland could adopt to meet its long-term housing needs.The Housing Production Strategy is an eight-
year plan which will be developed throughApril 2023.Beth Goodman and her team at ECONorthwest will
present a tentative timelineand scope for the projectto the Planning Commission in February or March.Mr.
Molnar invited members of the Commission to contact himself and Chair Norton if they wished to serve on the
Housing Production Strategy advisory committee, which will meet likely meet six times over a nine-month
period.
There are currently two hearings planned for the February 8thPlanning Commission meeting: 1) A request for a
minorComprehensivePlanMap correction to clarify the CityofAshland’sUrbanGrowthBoundary for four
propertieslocatedat375 & 475EastNevadaStreet, and2)Anapplication for a PhysicalandEnvironmental
constraintsreviewpermit for theconstructionof a newsingle-familyresidentialhomeonhillsidelandswith
severeconstraints for thevacantparcelat329GraniteStreet.
III.PUBLIC FORUM
The Commission heard from two prospective applicants for the vacant Planning Commission seat, Eric Navickas and Doug
Knaur.
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Croman Mill District Plan Update - Townmakers LLC.
The Commissionheard aproposalfrom Townmakers, LLCregarding the former Croman Mill site.Their team was comprisedof:
Ashland Planning Commission
January 25, 2022
Page 1 of 4
Development: Planning:
Mike Weinstock, DeveloperMichael Mehaffy, Urban Planner
Alan Harper, Land use Legal AdvisorLaurance Qamar, CNU-A Urban Designer
Darren Sandeno, Engineering Planner
Applicant Presentation:
Urban Planner Michael Mehaffy presented a slideshow detailing Townmakers’ plans to create a new mixed-use neighborhood on
the former Croman Mill site. This new neighborhood would compriseapproximately five hundred new homes,and include bike
paths, walkways, community gardens, and enclosed greenways that would connect the community.Thenearly sixty-five-acre
neighborhood would be made up of light-industrial, mixed-use buildings and affordable housing from single apartments to family
dwellings. Citing the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as market trends towards an increase in remotework, Townmakers, LLC.
hopes to create a neighborhood that includes small businesses,workshops, and dwellings that allow for an increased opportunity
for its residents to work from home.The proposal wouldbe tocreate a neighborhood in which one could live, work, and engage in
recreational activities all within the community, while still being connected to the greater city(See Attachment #1).
Questionsof the Applicant
The Planning Commission asked the following questions of the design team:
What makesthe applicant believeresidentsofthe Croman Mill district are actually going to work there, and vice
versa?
This is the perceivedmarket trend;people want to work close to where they live and that live-work-play mentality is
increasingly in demand.
How does the applicant define affordable housing?
Affordable housing as described in the Ashland code, and more broadlyon “attainable housing,” meaning that the
Croman Mill site would include housing aimed at residents with diverse ages, ethnicities, and incomes.
If the cottages focus around courtyards and non-parking areas, where wouldresidents park?
There wouldbe parking in the back alleyways, but also walk-in parking from the streets will allow that ease of accessto
residents.The applicant directed attention to neighborhoods in Seattleand other cities in the Southwestthat had
effectively used this design.
Wouldthis new multi-dimensionaldistrict competewith the Ashland main street and plaza area?
The new district would act as a secondary and complimentary node to the downtown area.The applicant stressed that
becausedowntownAshlandcontainedthe Oregon Shakespeare Festival and Lithia Parkthatthere would be limited
overlap between these two districts.
Do the applicants have a breakdown of the number and types of units that would be built?
The current plan attempts to predict the needsof the market, but will need to remain flexible to account for potential
market changesin the future. The Croman Mill siteispredicted to accommodate approximately five hundred new homes,
with 50% being multi-family housing, 25%for single-family detached housing, and the remaining 25%would be attached
row homes.There will also be accessory dwellings attached to dwellings and larger buildings. The applicant clarifiedthat
there would be no traditional apartment buildings, and that each residential block would include a mix of dwellings to
increase diversity within each zone.
How many acres would need to be annexed to create the district, and would Ashland affordable housing codes
triggered by the annexation then take effect overthe whole project?
Roughly seven acres would need to be annexed.
Senior Planner Brandon informed the Commission that the Ashland housing affordability code would trigger when
changing from a commercial to residential zone, and that the remaining area would then be subject to these affordability
requirements.
Will apartment buildingsexistin the Croman Mill Site? The Commission notedseveral large-scale properties in
the build plans. It was also pointed outthat due to the high cost of houses in Ashlandapartments were
Ashland Planning Commission
January 25, 2022
Page 2 of 4
becoming the desired and more affordable option for many Ashland residents.Additionally, wouldthese
apartmentbuildingsbe available for purchase orkeptas rentals?
In the current market the long-term planis to retain the rental apartments as income producing properties.
Regarding the division of the dwellings, at what point would developingexpensive,detached single-family
dwellingsceaseandinsteadmove to more affordable apartment buildings?
With past projects TownMakers LLC startedwith detached houses, but very quickly moved to Row-houses and flats
above stores. The goal isprice diversity,even if one kind would be more profitable. As time goes on this sort of
community would becomemore valuable if it werediversified.The current plan would be tocombine differently priced
units throughout the neighborhood and notseparatelower-income and higher-income homes within the district.
Councilor Paula Hyattthanked the applicantsand the Commission for their discussion on affordable housing,
particularly around the topic of the80%-120% Area Median Income (AMI)housing and rental units. Councilor
Hyatt that asked withregards to cyclists, what type of lane structuresare being consideredto protect them on
the road? Additionally, are there any current considerationsfor child-care services?
The roads would be designed to create slow-moving traffic, so the goal would be to integrate cycling and street traffic
rather than diverting cyclists to a separate bike lane.This also reduces the required width of roadways.However,two
routes are being considered as dedicated bike lanes.Onewouldcomedown the center of the communityon either side
of the central greenway, while the other would travel along the railway.Further discussion would be required.As for
childcare, that couldbepotentiallylocatedwithin one of the neighborhood courtyards where it would be protected from
traffic. This would create asafe, closedenvironment for children.
Public Testimony
Saraya Lumbreras/Ms. Lumbreras thanked the Commission and the applicants for their work in developing the Croman Mill site.
Sherequested that all development on the plot be made will all renewable energy to safeguard the community from the effects of
climate change. She cited her personal experience in witnessing her family’s struggle with health issues, as well as the Rocky
Mountain Institute and the De Mayo Clinic in describing the negative health effects caused by fossil fuels. According to these
studies it was found that in households burning gasses, such as those used in stoves and gas heating, produced fifty to four-
hundred times more carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide than fully electric homes.Because of thisin many instances short and
long-term nitrogen dioxide levels in homes with gas stoves exceeded outdoor EPA air quality limits. Ms. Lumbreras concluded by
requesting that the City of Ashland move to 100%renewable energy for city use and in development of the Croman Mill site.
Anya Moore/Ms. Moorethanked the Commission forits work inthe City of Ashland. She requested that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council adopt formal electrification policies, immediately work to reduce gas emissions, and
ensure that all future developments inAshland are done withrenewable energy. According to the2021State of Oregon Biennial
Report nearly one-third of the state’s carbon emissions are a result of households that rely upon fossil fuels. Approved in 2017,
Ashland’s Climate and Energy Action plan soughtto end the city’s reliance on fossil fuels by 2050. Ms. Moore emphasized that,
on its current trajectory, Ashland would not be able to meet these goals unless it committed to adopting formal electrification
policies, immediately reduced carbon emissions, and ensured that all future development was purely electric(See Attachment 2).
Mira Saturen/Ms. Saturen thanked the Commission and applicants for their work for Ashland and the opportunityto speak. She
requested that the Croman Mill site be developed to run solely on renewable energy, citing the health benefits for citizens,
climate,and the potential jobs such a policy would create.She suggestedthat homes built running onrenewable energy saw a
reduction in housing costs over the household’s lifetime, and eliminated the necessarycost of transitioningto renewable energy in
the future. Ms. Saturen further detailed the effects of climate change already seen in Jackson County,including reduced
snowpack and the increase in seasonal fires.She stated that to combat this Ashland needs to commit to eliminating its reliance
on fossil fuelsand adopt renewable energy policies (See Attachment 3).
Dana Greenblatt/Ms. Greenblatt thanked the applicants for their presentationand the Commission’s work for the City of Ashland.
She stated that she is a member of the Rogue Action Group, a non-profit that focuses on social issues such as housing.She
expressed support for development of the Croman Mill site,and emphasized the growing need foraffordable housing in Ashland
that has seen many residents priced out of the city in recent years. ShedetailedAshland’s demand for additional housing,
particularly for extremely low-income households.Ms. Greenblatt conveyed her understanding that one development site could
Ashland Planning Commission
January 25, 2022
Page 3 of 4
not be expected to solve the housing issues that afflict Ashland, but hoped that the applicants would do all they could to help
alleviate them.
Chair Norton thanked theparticipants for their public comments and, citing the size of the project, hopedthat more residents will
submit comments in the future.He also expressed a concern that between the numerous greenways, alleyways,and open
spaces, that there would belimited parking available in the neighborhood. He reminded the applicantsthat the City of Ashland
would only be responsible for the roadways within the neighborhood, and that the upkeep for the greenways, lawns, pond,and
amphitheater necessitated caretakingby a local Homeowners Association,which would further increase the cost of living in the
district.
Mr.Weinstock and Mr.Mehaffy stressedtheir goalofexploring renewable energy alternatives in the developmentof the district,
anddescribed two energy-saving methods that TownMakers, LLC.are considering: Passive House Construction, which would
reducethe energy cost of HVAC unitsbybetween 80-90%, and Geothermalenergy.Mr. Mehaffy also reiterated their commitment
to providing affordable housing and will go into further detailat a later date.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:06p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
January 25, 2022
Page 4 of 4
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Croman Mill Neighborhood Master Plan
Ashland, Oregon
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
January 25, 2022
1.Introductions
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Developer:
Mike Weinstock, TownmakersLLC
Development Team:
Ally Weinstock, administrator; Chris Valentine, construction manager;
Carlene Chin, team coordinator; Mike Montero, local property owner
representative; Alan Harper, land use legal advisor
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Planning Team:
Many years experience in planning and building popular, successful, live-
work-play neighborhoods that respect the local character and quality
Other communities by the planning team
*@>?-5:-.81 (1534.;=4;;0># &5A1 B;=7 >4;< /=1-?1 81-=: <8-DE5: -
five-minute walk from home
OrencoStation TODSeabrook WAPleasant Hill TOD
Senior Housing
MarketsParks
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Public Outreach
Project website
Stakeholder meetings
Community open house
Media coverage
Open House at BellviewGrange, January 12, 2022
13 attendees in the room, 47 on Zoom (60 total)
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Listening Station 5
Zoom Participants
COMMENTS
83 comments in total
Safety
Traffic impacts
Construction access
More industrial?
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
COMMENTS
83 comments in total
Fire evacuation paths
Fire resiliency
Height, density?
5;JDCGA KI;=?K R?GHMAB)
5;JDCGA KI;=?K RLHH F;GP)
COMMENTS
83 comments in total
0J??G @?;LMJ?K R?E?=LJC= =;JK)
Solar, district geothermal?
Greywater, electric (no gas?)
Gardens, markets?
Neighborhood composting?
Biking, pedestrian emphasis
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
COMMENTS
83 comments in total
Affordable housing?
Smaller homes, ADUs?
What price range?
How many homes total?
Apartments? Cottages?
COMMENTS
83 comments in total
.GNCJHGF?GL;E FCLCA;LCHG R
when, by whom?
What about truck traffic?
Can the rail be utilized?
Impact on downtown businesses?
Downtown electric shuttle?
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Please visit the website:
https://www.townmakers.net/
2. History of Croman Mill
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
-Originally the site of a municipal airport
-The timber mill opened in 1934
-The mill closed in 1996
-Hoped-for new industrial uses have not materialized
The site today:
65 acres with excellent access to downtown, the University,
I5, future trails, and existing infrastructure
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Ideal urban extension position
3. Redevelopment Planning
2008-2021
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
2008
Redevelopment
Plan
(Large
Industrial
8I=HIP
2010 Land Use Plan
R+FDG9JA:C= /E<KIJHA9CS !
+
S3>>A;= -DGCFOD=EJS
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Ch. 18.53 CM District
3H<AE9E;= '$'% Q+HFD9E 1ACC ,AIJHA;J 6J9E<9H<I
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
3H<AE9E;= '$'% Q6JH==J 6J9E<9H<I" =J 9C#
2010 Land Use Plan
R+FDG9JA:C= /E<KIJHA9CS !
S3>>A;= -DGCFOD=EJS
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
4. The New Reality Post-COVID:
Challenges and Opportunities
The post-COVID world is changing!
Lower office demand, more remote work: home offices, satellite
*
offices, live/works, et al.
Lower demand in Ashland for conven<276*4 26-=;<:2*4 ;2<.;! B+20
*
+7@.;C
New opportunities for light industrial, creative and value-added
*
47,*4 26-=;<:2.;! B5*3.: ;8*,.;C .< *4#
More premium on live-work-play an- * C/4201< <7 9=*42<AC 57:.
*
livable neighborhoods with a mix of amenities)
A need for greater flexibility to allow innovative new formats to
develop, to recruit and to compete
*
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
The post-COVID world is changing!
C(/73=D 26>?=61?> >9/88 >/?3886?3 ;44613> 5;93 ;44613>B
(Reports from Deloitte, McKinsey, et al.)
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
5=: 413,+. EFD7F:<JK
"'6 602, (02.#43 8!#,'231#%'39 (02 4*' 705/) #&5-43
women entrepreneurs and immigrant businesses
-Distillery next
to Croman Mill
-Granville Island,
Vancouver BC
-Barlow District,
Sebastopol, CA
".4=8DLE
District St.
Johns, Portland
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Entrepreneurs, apprenticeships, creative businesses
-
Makers of local
products (foods,
etc.)
-
Artists,
craftspeople
-
Musicians,
instrument makers
-
Glassblowers
-
Ceramists
-
Culinary artists
-
Cider, wine
makers, brewers,
distillers
-
Innovators
The post-COVID world is changing!
An urgent need for more housing -but not just
any housing anywhere: a demand for location-
efficient, well-connected homes, at a range of
prices including affordable, in livable, mixed,
diverse communities.
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
The post-COVID world is changing!
5. The Revised Proposal
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
A Sustainable Community: Live, work, shop, create,
>84C@ B>4IJ<@ 4 9<G8 ?<@FE8 H4>= 9CA? ;A?8
Health and Wellness
-, active recreation,
walking, biking, fresh food, social interaction
-Synergies with shops, offices, live-work
houses, cultural amenities, wellness providers
-Range of home values for income diversity
-Accommodate remote workers,
entrepreneurs, satellite businesses
$+65641+)3!-+636/1+)3 =1:0 @/8--5=)?9A )5,
cottage courts, reduced paving
Flexible framework plan to accommodate
-
different uses according to buyer needs
Community Gardens
-
A Sustainable Community: Live, work, shop, create,
>84C@ B>4IJ<@ 4 9<G8 ?<@FE8 H4>= 9CA? ;A?8
5! #1"6 #.--'%2'& #.,/$%2 #.,/+'2' #.,/lex, Convivial, Conserving, Cost-effective
Small CottagesAccessory Dwellings
Missing Middle Housing
Daily needs in walking distance Bike-friendly, paths/trails
Walkable streets
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Main Street Retail Shops -Ashland Style
Live-above Shops, and Small Apartment Houses
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
".1*%3+3 0/ .+7(' 53( 8.%,(2 31%&(39
Live and work in the same home
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Development Concept:
Alternating greenways and lanes
Greenways and cottage courts instead of streets
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Rear Lanes (Mews) and Mid-block Pathways
Store cars in carriage houses and garages on the mid-block lanes
Garages with live-abovesthat are
detached from main houses. Carriage
houses provide an extra bedroom, a
rental unit, or a work studio.
Windows and doors facing the rear lane
enliven and make rear lanes socially
interactive safe spaces
Rear Lane Carriage Houses (ADUs or Accessory Dwelling Units)
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
A(/895/ 95+-/;B# %86/; 0+-371 1://7?+@;! 6+37 ;<://<
shops and community gathering places
Pedestrian Safety Starts with Narrow Streets to Slow Drivers
Speed is #1 cause of pedestrian/bike fatalities
-
Car hitting a pedat 40 MPH=20% survival
-
Car hitting a pedat 30 MPH=60% survival
-
Car hitting a pedat 20 MPH=90% survival
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Houses Surrounding Cottage Courts -Ashland Creekside
Multifamily and Row Homes -Ashland
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Architectural Character: Multifamily and Mixed-use Housing
Rowhome with a variety of faces -
Individuality and community
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Affordable Side Yard Cottages
Affordable Cottages
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
The On-site Design Process
The Croman Mill Site -Beautiful views of mountains, wetland pond
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Surrounding Neighborhoods and Districts
Multi-day, on-site design and planning
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Study Concept Plans
Study Schemes
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Study Schemes
The New
Community Plan
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Makers District &
Light Industrial Pocket Neighborhoods
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Transportation Network
2010 Ped and Bike
Framework
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Proposed Ped, Bike and Bus Framework
)<:;:=10 ,><11> ,1/>5:9= D'-59 ,><11>
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
)<:;:=10 ,><11> ,1/>5:9= D(1534.:<4::0 *?1?1593 ,><11>
+=;<;>21 ,?=22? ,20?6;:> E%$F 082.= &882D *.:2 3;= (92=42:0D &002>>
January 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment #1
Thank You!
My name is Anya Moore, I use she/her pronouns, I live in the city of Ashland, and I am a junior
at Ashland high school. I’m grateful to be here today, and I want to thank all of you for the time
and energy that you put into helping our community. My ask is that the Ashland Planning
Commission recommend to City Council that we adopt formal electrification policy, immediate
gas restrictions, and ensure all developments before the laws pass are electric, including the
Croman Mill Site Development. This would prevent fossil fuels from harming our community and
our climate, and help keep Ashland on track to reach its climate goals. According to the State of
Oregon Biennial Energy Report, “Homes and buildings cause about one-third of the state’s
climate pollution—the second-largest source of climate pollution after the transportation sector.”
Every major study on meeting our climate goals - from the United Nations to the Obama
Administration to the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s - calls for running buildings on
clean electricity rather than fossil fuels, and combining that with efficiency to reduce energy
waste and lower costs for building owners and the overall system. In an attempt to do this,
Ashland’s Climate and Energy Action Plan was approved by City Council in 2017 and has a
goal to attain carbon neutrality in City operations by 2030, and reduce fossil fuel consumption by
50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. According to the 2021 Climate and Energy Action Plan
Progress Update, “Community natural gas emissions increased ten percent in 2020 compared
to the 2015 baseline. Ashland will notbe able to meet its climate goals if fossil gas use
continues to expand and increase. New construction and development in Ashland often
increase use of fossil energy sources, which makes achieving the City’s emissions goals more
difficult.” The addition of 500 housing units on the Croman Mill Site Development will make
achieving the City’s emissions goals more difficult, unlesswe adopt formal electrification policy,
immediate gas restrictions, and ensure that the development is all-electric. Again, thank you for
taking the time to listen to me today. I appreciate everything you all do for this community. And I
really enjoyed the presentation and seeing the plans for the development! I would certainly live
there… if it was electric.
Hello, Myname is Mira Saturen and I use she/her pronouns. I was born and
raised in Ashland and I am a sophomore at Ashland High School. First I just
wanted to say thank you so much for this opportunity to speak, and I really
appreciate everything you all do for our community.
I am testifying today because I want to ensure that the new developments in the
Croman Mill district will be built 100% electric, so we can utilize as much
renewable energy as possible.
Electrification in residential and commercial buildings has many benefits for the
climate, the health of residents as well as providing increased job opportunities.
According to a report by the rocky mountain institute, The burning of natural gas,
oil and propane in US homes and businesses releases 560 million tons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere per year, which accounts for 10% of emissions in the
US. (rocky mountain institute report)
In many situations, electrifying homes has led to lower costs over the lifetime of
the homeowners and studies find that building 100% electric homes is cheaper
than homes with gas. Additionally, building fully electric buildings from the start
eliminates the costs of hooking up new buildings to gas lines.
In Ashland, We are already feeling the effects of the climate crisis through dry,
smoky summers and decreased snowpack. To combat this, the city needs to be
doing all that it can to reduce our emissions and climate impacts. Ashland should
not be investing in any more fossil fuel infrastructure at all.
Transitioning Ashland to all electric begins with making sure that new buildings,
such as in the Croman Mill district, are built utilizing 100% electricity.
In addition, I want the Ashland Planning Commission to recommend to the city
council that we adopt formal electrification policy, immediate gas restrictions, and
ensure all developments before the laws pass are all electric.
Again, thank you for listening and for all that you do for our city!
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900
NOTICE OF ELECTRONICPUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2022-00036
SUBJECT PROPERTY:329 Granite St.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning Services for Clarke
DESCRIPTION:Anapplicationfor a Physical andEnvironmentalconstraintsreviewpermit(P&E)forthe
construction of a newsingle-familyresidentialhomeonhillsidelandswithsevereconstraintsforthevacantparcelat329
granitestreet.TheapplicationfortheP&Eincludes a requestforsixdifferentexceptionstothedevelopmentstandards.The
developmentalsorequires a limitedactivityandusespermitintheWaterResourceProtectionZone(WRPZ)for a driveway
crossing anidentifiedwaterway,twovariancesforanallowanceofthemaximumgradeof a drivewayandanallowanceto
exceed themaximumlotcoverage,andfinally a treeremovalpermitfortheremovalofnineteensignificant
trees.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Woodland / LDR; ZONING: WR / RR-.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 EE,TAX LOT:
704
NOTE:The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Thursday, February 3at 6:00 PM. See
page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing.
ELECTRONICASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 7:00 PM
th
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2022\\2022-02-08\\Granite_329\\1_Granite_329_PA-T2-2022-00036_NOC.docx
Tree Commission Meeting
Notice is hereby given that the Tree Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on
the meeting date and time shown on Page 1. If you would like to watch and listen to the Tree Commissionmeeting virtually, but
not participate in any discussion, you can use the Zoom link posted on the City of Ashland calendar website
https://www.ashland.or.us/calendar.asp .
Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic
PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 3, 2022.
meeting, send an email toIn order to
provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make thesubject line of the email “Advisory
Commission Testimony Request”, 2) include your name, 3) specify the date and commission meeting you wish to testify at, 4)
specify the agenda item you wish to speak to, 5) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 6) the name you
will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone.
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).
Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearingon the above described
planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter
Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.eduand selecting
RVTV Prime.
‘’
The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning actionare attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers 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.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by
email.Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541)
488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us.
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy
seven days prior to the hearing.Copies of
of the staff report will be available on-line atwww.ashland.or.us/PCpackets
application materialswill be provided at reasonable cost, if requested.Under extenuating circumstances, application
materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services
planning@ashland.or.us.
Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing
Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.uswith the
February 8PC Hearing Testimony
subject line “” by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, February 7, 2022.If the applicant wishes to
provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.uswith the
February 8Hearing TestimonyFebruary 8, 2022.
subject line “” by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Written testimony received by
these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the
meeting minutes.
Oraltestimonywillbetakenduringtheelectronic publichearing.Ifyouwishtoprovideoraltestimonyduringtheelectronic
meeting,sendanemailtoPC-public-testimony@ashland.or.usby10:00a.m.onTuesday,February8,2022. Inorderto
providetestimonyatthepublichearing,pleaseprovide thefollowinginformation:1)makethesubjectlineoftheemail
February 8 SpeakerRequest
“”, 2)include yourname,3)theagendaitemonwhichyouwishtospeakon,4)specifyifyou
will beparticipatingbycomputerortelephone,and5)thenameyouwilluseifparticipatingbycomputerorthetelephone
numberyouwilluseifparticipatingbytelephone.
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).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Andersonat 541-552-2052 or
aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us.
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2022\\2022-02-08\\Granite_329\\1_Granite_329_PA-T2-2022-00036_NOC.docx
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 theapplication 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.
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 procedurein 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.
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.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section
4.The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter
18.3.10
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 ofthe subject site, such as
topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for
purposes of approving a variance.
2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site.
3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property
line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant.
LIMITED ACTIVITIES & USES PERMIT (AMC 18.3.11.060.D)
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 Resources 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 except where 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 habitatrestoration 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.
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.
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2022\\2022-02-08\\Granite_329\\1_Granite_329_PA-T2-2022-00036_NOC.docx
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) ora 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 applicantto 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 otherapplicable Land Use Ordinance requirements
and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental
Constraints in part 18.10.
b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees,
or existing windbreaks.
c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversitywithin 200 feet of
the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making
this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate 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.
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2022\\2022-02-08\\Granite_329\\1_Granite_329_PA-T2-2022-00036_NOC.docx
ASHLANDPLANNINGDIVISION
STAFFREPORT
PLANNINGACTION:
PA-T2-2022-00036
APPLICANT:
Rogue Planning & Development Services,LLC
OWNERS:
Katherine and Joseph Clarke
SUBJECTPROPERTIES:
329GraniteStreet
ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 08 DD; TAX LOT: 704
ORDINANCEREFERENCES:
See
https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse
AMC 18.2.5
Standards forResidential Zones
AMC 18.3.10
Physical & Environmental Constraints
AMC 18.3.11
WaterResourceProtection Zones
AMC 18.5.1
GeneralReviewProcedures
AMC 18.5.3.060
FlagLotPartitionPlatCriteria
AMC 18.5.5
Variances
AMC 18.5.7 TreeRemoval
AMC 18.6
Definitions
120-DAYTIMELINE:
May 31, 2022
I.Request
Theapplication proposes the construction of a new single-familyresidential home on a vacant
parcelat 329 Granite Street.Because of the steep topography and the twostreamsbisecting the
property (seeinset below right), the development of both the home anddriveway require several
planning approvals. These planning approvals include a Physicaland Environmental constraints
review(P&E)which includes severalrequestedexceptions, a limitedactivityandusespermitin
the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ), a varianceto both maximumallowed lot coverage
andmaximum grade of a driveway, andtreeremovalpermits for the removal of eighteen
significant trees.Each of thesewill be discussedindetail below.
II.Description of Property
The property at 329 Granite Street is a legal
lot of record that was established prior to the
City’s hillside development ordinance.
Although it 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.
In May of 2004 the prior owners of the
property donated the western 13.71 acres of
the parent property to the City of Ashland
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision – StaffReport (aa)
Applicant
: RoguePlanning & DevelopmentServices,LLCPage1 of11
Parks Department as public open space (see PA-2004-057). The eastern portion of the that
partition becameaddressed as 329 Granite Streetandis the subject parcel. Following the
partition in June of 2004 the property owners applied for and received a P&E permit to allow for
the construction of a driveway to the building envelope that had been proposed at that time(PA-
2004-074). The 2004 approval predated our present WRPZ regulations and had a slightly
different alignment than the current proposal. Construction of that project never moved forward.
III.Detailsof Application
As mentioned above the application is a request for a Physical and Environmental (P&E) permit,
limited activity and uses permit in the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ),variance to
both maximum allowed lot coverage and maximum grade of a driveway,and tree removal
permits pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10, 18.3.11, 18.5.5, and 18.5.7 as
further detailed below:
TheP&Eisforeachof the following landclassifications: flood zone,hillside,andsevere
constraints.Theapplicationalso includes requestsfor exceptions from the following
standards:
The standards allownew driveways on slopes greaterthan 35 percentfor a length
o
not toexceed 100 feet.Here the driveway proposed ismorethan 800 feet,and
(AMC
nearlyallis on lands with slopes greaterthan 35 percent.
18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.)
The proposal retains 69.3 percentof the siteinitsnaturalstatewhen the
o
standards, based on average slope, callfor 89.57 percentto be retainedin a
(AMC 18.3.10.B.3.)
naturalstate.
The standards allow a maximumcut slope of 15 feetand require terracing,with
o
terrace heights not toexceedfivefeet.Here,cut slopes of 30 feetwithten-foot
(AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4.b.)
high terracesare proposed.
The standards callfor building placementto avoid ridgelines andtomaximizetree
o
preservationandretention of the site’snaturalstate.The building placementhere
isat the ridgeline, removes a total of 97 treesandaskesforan exception tolessen
(AMC 18.3.10.090.E.1.a)
the amount of the siteretainedinitsnaturalstate.
The standards requirethat downhill building wallsgreaterthan 20 feet provide a
o
six-foot step-back.As proposed, the easternfaçadewallis 26 feet high without
AMC 18.3.10.090 E.2.c
the requiredstep-back. ()
The standards requirethat a continuous horizontal building plane greaterthan 36
o
feetin length include atleast a six-foot off-set.Here the applicant proposes
AMC 18.3.10.090.E.2.d.
longer planes without the requisiteoff-set. ()
Variances:
Two
Lot Coverage (TypeII)
o
Theapplication requests anincreasein the allowable lot coverage,
proposing a totalarea of impervious surfacesin the WR zone of 7,663 sq.
ft,whichexceeds the maximumallowable coverage of 4,611 sq. ft.Thisis
a 66-percent increaseinallowable lot coveragefor the WRzone.
DrivewayGrade (Type II)
o
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision – StaffReport (aa)
Applicant
: RoguePlanning & DevelopmentServices,LLCPage2 of11
Theapplication proposes that one segment of drivewayhavean 18-percent
grade for a length of 200 feet.
LimitedActivities & UsesPermit
A to construct a new driveway crossing the Water
ResourceProtection Zone (WRPZ)forTwinCreek,anidentified‘Intermittent/Ephemeral
(AMC 18.3.10.060.D)
Stream.”
Tree Removal Permit1897
A for the removal of significanttrees. A total of treesare
18
identifiedas being removed; of these areconsideredto be ‘significant’bydefinition
(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
andto 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
areas of the property with the slopes of less than 35-percent, which were identified for the
building envelope, are located considerably upslope from the access and thus require significant
encroachment into the steep slopes and riparian protection zones so that the driveway could
achieve the required grade. Additionally, the application asserts that the location of the two
identified watercourses preclude development of the lower portion of the property. 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 that these site conditions constitute “a unique aspect
because a parcel with this degree of slope cannot be created under present zoning ordinances.”
In short, each of these requested exceptions, and both variances, are predicated on the building
envelope being located in the area that is less steep but also higher up on the lot along the
ridgeline on the hill. 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). No formal
building envelope was established for this lot in 2004 upon completion of the boundary lot
adjustment as the parent parcel was created in 1988 (PA88-102) and the Development Standards
for Hillside Lands were adopted in 1997. As such the development of the property is either to
locate the building envelope on the ridgeline to avoid severely sloped areas, or alternatively
locate the building lower down on the lot upon areas with slopes in excess of 35-percent to avoid
location on the ridgeline. The application as proposed presents a building envelope along the
ridgeline primarily on slopes less than 35-percent.
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision – StaffReport (aa)
Applicant
: RoguePlanning & DevelopmentServices,LLCPage3 of11
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 two separate variances, one to
exceed the amount of allowed lot coverage and the
other for maximum allowed grade of the driveway.
The code specifies that there are maximum allowed
lot coverages for different zones. Shown at right is
the subject property with the two separate zoning
districts delineated by the dashed line bisecting the
property. The western part is 1.51 acres and is
zoned Woodland Reserve (WR), and the eastern
part is 1.71 acres and is zoned Rural Residential
(RR-.5). The WR zone allows for 7-percentlot
coverage and the RR-.5 zone allows for 20-percent
lot coverage. The application request to increase the
amount of lot coverage on the WR zoned partfrom
the allowed maximum of 7-percentto a total of
11.7-percent. This is an increase of 66-percentover
the standard (3,052 sq ft over the allowed 4,611 sq.
ft. for a total of 7,663). The RR-.5 part of the
property is proposed to have a total of 13.7-percent lot coverage, which is 6.3-percent below the
allowed maximum coverage of 20-percent. That said, when considering the property as a whole,
the overall proposal has less lot coverage than would be allowed in total.
The application is requesting a variance to driveway grade to allow one segment of driveway to
exceed the 15-percent maximum grade, but remain less than 18-percent, for a distance of 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 chapter18.5.5Variances.
The proposed driveway is 814-feetin total length with a vertical climb of 124-feetfor an average
slope of 15.23-percentwith a range between 8-18 percent. The applicants have designed the
driveway so that one section that is 200-feet in length has an 18-percent grade. The remainder of
the driveway is at or below 15-percentgrade.
If the Planning Commission finds that the variance meets the criteria of approval this will be in
accordance with the allowed maximum 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
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision – StaffReport (aa)
Applicant
: RoguePlanning & DevelopmentServices,LLCPage4 of11
driveway on land 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 in the
area where the slopes are less steep, and that based on this location the “exception is
unavoidable”given so much of the property has slopes greater than 35-percent. The proposed
driveway is over 800-feet in length and meanders through the property to reach the proposed
building envelope, 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
There are two requested exceptions to the hillside grading standards; an exception to the amount
of the lot required to be retained in its natural state, and over all cut height and terraced section
height.
The first grading exception is with regard to the amount of the lot to be retained in a natural state.
The code requires that “
an area equal to 25 percent of the total project area, plus the
percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural
*
†
” The code provides the methodology to calculatethe ‘average slope,’ for this purpose.
state.
Based on this formula the calculated average slope is 64.5-percenttherefore the amount of the lot
that is required toremain in a natural state is 89.5-percent (2.88 acres). The application proposes
leaving only 69.3-percent (2.23 acres) in natural state which is a reduction of 0.65 acres.
The second grading exception related to the terracing of the property necessary to accommodate
the proposed driveway. Section 18.3.10.090.B.4 of the Land Use Ordinance stipulates that cut
faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. and the total cut
slopes shall not exceed a maximum
vertical height of 15 feet as shown in the
illustration at right.
The applicant proposes to exceed this
standard in two locations with cut slopes
of 30 feet with each terraced section being
10 feet in height (see section diagrams D
and E on Sheet L1.9 \[at 110 in applicants’
submittal\]). Although these significant cut
faces and terraced sections exceedthe
amount permitted without an exception,
the taller cuts may function to preserve a
greater percentage of the lot in a natural
state.
*
AMC 18.3.10.090.B.3
†
From AMC 18.6.1.030-
Average Slope.For the purposes of determining the area to remain in a natural state in Hillside
Lands,average slopefor a parcel of land or for an entire project is calculated before grading using the following formula: S
= .00229(I)(L)A where "S" is theaveragepercent ofslope; ".00229" is the conversion factor for square feet; "I" is the contour interval
in feet; "L" is the summation of length of the contour lines in scale feet; and "A" is the area of the parcel or project in acres.
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision – StaffReport (aa)
Applicant
: RoguePlanning & DevelopmentServices,LLCPage5 of11
C.BuildingLocationandDesign
There are three items in the building location and design section within the hillside standards for
which exception are requested including building envelope, and horizontal & vertical wall
limitations. As stated previously the proposed location of the building is to be on the ridgeline of
the hill, which does not conform to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands
recommendation to avoid ridge lines, located to maximize tree conservationand to take into
account the provisions regarding the amount of the parcel that is to remain in its natural state.
The application asserts that the proposed location of the building allows for the structure to be
developed on the least steep portion of the property.
D.TreeRemoval
The application states that there are over 330 trees larger than six inchesDBH (Diameter at
Breast Height), 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 “in
the path of the proposed driveway, are in the building envelope, or within the required 30-foot
buffer from the residence, are in poor condition, or the impacts of construction will irreparably
harm the trees.” The application asserts that, “There are no specimen trees or trees of stellar
quality that would necessitate preservation or redesign of the driveway, building envelope area,
and proposed residence.”With that said,the applicationincludes a request a Tree Removal
permit for eighteensignificant trees, as well as Tree Removal permits for those regulated trees in
the Riparian protection zone/floodplain of Twin Creek,and many smaller stature trees that are
part of the wildfire fuel reduction plan.
V.ApprovalCriteria
The criteria of approval for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit
are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10.050 which require that all of the
following criteria are met:
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.
The criteria of approval for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands
are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10.090.H which require that all of
the following criteria are 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
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport(aa)
Applicant
:RoguePlanning&DevelopmentServices,LLCPage6of11
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.
The criteria of approval for a Limited Activities and Uses Permit in the WRPZ are
described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.11.060.D which require that all of the
following criteria are met:
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 WaterResource 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, andremovalof 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
section18.3.11.110, 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 subsection18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not
required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and
accessory structures
The criteria of approval for a Variance are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
18.5.5.050 which require that all of the following criteria are met:
1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for
special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural
features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may
be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance.
2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical
circumstances related to the subject site.
3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For
example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or
land division approval previously granted to the applicant.
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport(aa)
Applicant
:RoguePlanning&DevelopmentServices,LLCPage7of11
The criteria of approval for a Tree Removal are described in Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC) 18.5.7.040.B.2 which require that all of the following criteria are met:
a.Thetreeis proposed forremovalin 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 part18.4 and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b.Removalof thetreewill not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacenttrees, or existing windbreaks.
c.Removalof thetreewill not have a significant negative impact on thetreedensities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City
shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to thetree 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 ontrees, 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 theremovalof eachtreegranted
approval pursuant to section18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
VI.Conclusions and Recommendations
The subject property was created prior to the current Physical & Environmental Constraints
Review Ordinance(AMC 18.3.10), and has an average slope of 64.57 percent. A property
lacking an adequate buildable area with slopes less than 35 percent could not be created today,
and existing properties without adequate buildable area less than 35 percent cannot be partitioned
or subdivided.
Pre-existing legal lots of record, however, are considered to be buildable for a single family
residence and an accessory residential or duplex unit, and as such the subject property here is
considered to be buildable.
Planning Staff acknowledges the complexity of developing the specific property at 329 Granite
Street due to the physical constraints present, and further recognizes that the limitations
regarding driveway grades poses added difficulty in developing the subject property due to the
confluence of steep slopes, riparian protection zones, and tree preservation objectives. The
applicant has presented detailed findings for the Commission’s consideration addressing each of
the variances and exceptions proposed.
In staff’s view, the question for the Planning Commission ultimately comes down to whether the
applicant’s site planning and building design adequately address the criteria and standards for the
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, two Variances and six associated design
Exceptions, particularly with regard to the adverse impacts of increased lot coverage and
decreased area retained in a natural state, demonstrates that the impacts of the proposal have
been minimized, or if the Commission determines that the adverse impacts of the proposal
(including the combined disturbance of the driveway and home and associated tree removals,
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport(aa)
Applicant
:RoguePlanning&DevelopmentServices,LLCPage8of11
3,052 square feet of additional lot coverage and a 28,375 square foot reduction in the area
required to be retained in a natural state) could be lessened if the building envelope were placed
lower on the lot and the driveway shortened. In staff’s view, the application materials do not not
provide acomplete analysis of whether an alternative building location would reduce
development impacts and thereby minimize the type and number of variances and exceptions
requested.
If the Planning Commission Finds that the required approval criteria are met Staff recommends
that the following conditions of approval be adopted:
1.Thatallproposalsoftheapplicantshallbeconditionsofapprovalunlessotherwise
modifiedherein.
2.Thattheplanssubmittedforthebuildingpermitshallbeinsubstantialconformancewith
thoseapprovedaspartofthisapplication.Iftheplanssubmittedforthebuildingpermit
arenotinsubstantialconformancewiththoseapprovedaspartofthisapplication,an
applicationtomodifythislanduseapprovalshallbesubmittedandapprovedpriorto
issuanceofabuildingpermit.
3.Thatthepropertyownershallsigninfavoroflocalimprovementdistrictsforthefuture
streetimprovements,includingbutnotlimitedtosidewalks,parkrow,curb,gutterand
stormdrainage,forGraniteStreetpriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit.
4.ThattherecommendationsoftheTreeCommission,whereconsistentwithapplicable
standardsandwithfinalapprovaloftheStaffAdvisor,shallbeconditionsofthis
approval.
5.ThatarevisedTreeProtectionPlanconsistentwiththestandardsdescribedinAMC
18.4.5besubmittedforreviewandapprovaloftheStaffAdvisorpriortotheissuanceof
abuildingpermit.TheplanshallincorporatetherecommendationsoftheTree
Commissionandidentifythelocationandplacementoffencingaroundthedriplinesof
treesidentifiedforpreservation.Thetreeprotectionfencingshallbeinstalledaccording
totheapprovedplanpriortoanysitework.Noconstructionshalloccurwithinthetree
protectionzoneincludingdumpingorstorageofmaterialssuchasbuildingsupplies,soil,
waste,equipment,orparkedvehicles.Theamountoffillandgradingwithinthedrip
linesshallbeminimized.Cutswithinthedriplineshallbenotedonthetreeprotection
plan,andshallbeexecutedbyhandsawandkepttoaminimum.Nofillshallbeplaced
aroundthetrunk/crownroot.
6.ThataTreeVerificationPermitshallbeappliedforandapprovedbytheStaffAdvisor
priortopermitissuance,treeremoval,oranysiteworkincludingdemolition,staging,
storageofmaterials,orexcavation.TheTreeVerificationPermitistoinspectthe
identificationofthetreetoberemovedandtheinstallationoftreeprotectionfencingfor
thetreestobeprotectedonandadjacenttothesite.Thetreeprotectionshallbechainlink
fencingsixfeettallandinstalledinaccordancewithAMC18.4.5.030.
7.Thatanytemporaryerosioncontrolmeasures(i.e.siltfenceandbalebarriers)andsilt
fencingtoprotecttheTwinCreeksWaterResourceProtectionZoneshallbeinstalled
accordingtotheapprovedplan,inspectedandapprovedbytheStaffAdvisorpriortoany
sitework,staging,storageofmaterials,excavationorpermitissuance.
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport(aa)
Applicant
:RoguePlanning&DevelopmentServices,LLCPage9of11
8.Thatapre-constructionconferencetoreviewtherequirementsoftheHillside
DevelopmentPermitshallbeheldon-sitepriortositework,theissuanceofanexcavation
permitortheissuanceofabuildingpermit,whicheveractionoccursfirst.Theconference
shallincludetheAshlandPlanningDepartment,AshlandBuildingDepartment,any
relevantPublicWorksorUtilitiesstaff,andtheapplicant’sprojectteamincludingthe
projectengineer,projectgeotechnicalexperts,landscapeprofessional,arborist,the
generalcontractorandexcavationandutilitysubcontractors.Theapplicantorapplicants’
representativeshallcontacttheAshlandPlanningDepartmenttoschedulethe
preconstructionconference.
9.Thatallmeasuresinstalledforthepurposesoflong-termerosioncontrol,includingbut
notlimitedtovegetativecover,rockwalls,retainingwallsandlandscapingshallbe
maintainedinperpetuityonallareasinaccordancewithAMC18.3.10.090.B.7.
10.Thatafinal‘GeneralFuelModificationArea’fuelreductionplanaddressingthe
requirementsinAMC18.3.10.100.Bshallbeprovidedforthereviewandapprovalofthe
FireDepartmentpriortobringingcombustiblematerialsontotheproperty,andanynew
landscapingproposedshallcomplywiththewildfireoverlayzonestandardsandshallnot
includeplantslistedontheProhibitedFlammablePlantListperResolution2018-028.
11.Thatthebuildingpermitsubmittalsshallincludethefollowing:
a.Identificationofalleasements,includingbutnotlimitedtoanypublicand
privateutilityeasements,mutualaccesseasements,,andfireapparatus
accesseasements.
b.Solarsetbackcalculationsdemonstratingthatallnewconstruction
complieswithSolarSetbackStandardAintheformula\[(Height–
6)/(0.445+Slope)=RequiredSolarSetback\]andelevationsorcross
sectiondrawingsclearlyidentifyingthehighestshadowproducingpoint(s)
andtheheight(s)fromnaturalgrade.
c.Lotcoveragecalculationsincludingallbuildingfootprints,driveways,
parking,andcirculationareas.Lotcoverageshallbelimitedtonomore
thanthatdescribedinthecurrentVariancerequest.
d.Thatstormwaterfromallnewimpervioussurfacesandrun-offassociated
withpeakrainfallsmustbecollectedonsiteandchanneledtotheCity
stormwatercollectionsystem(i.e.,curbgutteratpublicstreet,public
stormpipeorpublicdrainageway)orthroughanapprovedalternativein
accordancewithAshlandBuildingDivisionpolicyBD-PP-0029.On-site
collectionsystemsshallbedetailedonthebuildingpermitsubmittals.
e.Thatwrittenverificationfromtheprojectgeotechnicalexpertaddressing
theconsistencyofthebuildingpermitsubmittalswiththegeotechnical
reportrecommendations(e.g.gradingplan,stormdrainageplan,
foundationplan,etc.)shallbeprovidedwiththebuildingpermit.
f.Thatthebuildingfoundationshallbedesignedbyanengineerorarchitect
withdemonstrablegeotechnicaldesignexperienceinaccordancewith
AMC18.3.10.090.F.
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport(aa)
Applicant
:RoguePlanning&DevelopmentServices,LLCPage10of11
12.That prior tofinal inspection approval or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a.Replacementtreestomitigate the treesremovedshall be plantedand
irrigated according to the approved plan, oralternativemitigation
addressedas provided inAMC 18.5.7.050.
b.That the flag drive shall be pavedto a 12-foot width, with a vertical
clearanceof 13-feet, 6-inchesand be abletowithstand 44,000 lbs. prior to
finalinspection approval or the issuanceof a certificate of occupancy.
Theflag drive shall be constructedsoastopreventsurfacedrainagefrom
flowing over the private property linesand / or public wayinaccordance
with 18.5.3.060.Theapplicantshallprovide certificationthat the
driveway grade is consistent withthatpermittedhereinprepared by a
licensedland surveyor.
c.That the projectgeo-technicalexpertshallinspect the siteaccordingto the
inspection schedule of the engineering geology report by XXX
GEOLOGIC included in the application anddatestampedDATEOF
REPORTPriorto the issuance of thecertificateofoccupancy, the project
geo-technical expert shall provide a final report indicatingthat the
approved grading, drainage and erosion control measureswereinstalledas
per the approved plans, and thatallscheduled inspections were conducted
by the project geotechnical expertperiodically throughout the project.
d.The landscaping andirrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and
erosion control shall be installedinaccordancewith the approved plan
prior toissuance of the certificateofoccupancy.Vegetationshall be
installedinsuch a manner asto be substantiallyestablishedwithin one
year of installation.
PlanningActionPA-T2-2022-00036AshlandPlanningDivision – StaffReport (aa)
Applicant
: RoguePlanning & DevelopmentServices,LLCPage11of11
.Here,
Residential)-
for
site’s
driveway
are
theeastern
(AMC up(AMC 57
lessen
feet
off
.
Variances
89
proposed,
(WRPZ)
foot
these
)
.
200
the
for
.
b
.
..
feet
to
constraints
-
2 the
proposed
.
six
of
call
theof
exception
of
3
.
proposed,
five
length A
a
(woodland
Zone
.
for
18
retention
Hereslope,
least
090
s
;
A
exceed
provides
.
removed
.
Street
is
10
a
Protection
severe.at
feet
an
for.
-
average
3
.
feet include
As
for
and
18
to
WR
grade
)
Granite
100
.
and
.
notaskes
being
with d
(AMC
back
.
square
preservation
the
2
.
percent,exceed
on
percent
E
length
heights
.Resource
lands
-
090
TREET
and
as
step
and
329.
based
percent
052
.
identified
zoned,
at 10
trees
foot
to
in
hillside
,
.
S
18terrace
)
15
standards,
feet
.
property
3 not
3
.
RANITE
b
additional
-
Water
.
tree
of
18
an
six
35
4
97
-
.
)
split
length
c
36
B
grade
of AMC
.
.
allowthan
of
a
are
2
maximize
with 090
.D)
provide
development
than
total
E
vacant
329 G
(
is the
.
.
trees
090
greater
.
.
.
060
to D)
theterracing,10
a
set
a)
lot
maximum
forgreater
an
.
.
..
Variance
crossing
a
.
3-
090
1
10
.
off
.
when
The
feet 10
removes
existing 97
OR percent 18
–
E
.
to
.
.
.
3
slopes
090
.
coverage
requisiteof
10 3
00036 F
(AMC
.
18
and
.
20
.
18
district
plane
.total
a
state
require 3
the
.
10
a AMC
allows
driveway
than
18
(AMC
requests
the
ridgelines
ridgeline,
.
.
35
with
for
3
proposed
:
)
.
natural
.
(AMC
Lands
building
A
18
percent
the
3
than
on
-
greater
.
.
zoning
Permit
.
back
landsand
2022
B
code
”
trees
(AMC
.
.
residence
without
10
&
greater
Stream
applicant
Hillside
feet
.
-
new
040
the
its
avoid
3
horizontal
-step
The
.
are
on
significant
the
walls
T2 7
18
state
.
Review
.
at
in
11
is15
7
a
-
terraces
.
.
‘Intermittent/Ephemeral
planes
for
required
(AMC
all
driveway
5
slopes construct
#PA
site
is
family
to
for
of
.
where
natural
building
18
the
here
nearly
placement
coverage
slope
Constraints
Standards
the
(AMC
CTION
.
continuous
longer
Here
state
18
single
on
high
placement
coverage,
the
of
its
cut
flagof
downhill
and
driveways
percentdefinition
natural
to
.without
A
foot
removal
lot
feet
in
proposes
feet,
a
LANNING
new Permit
maximum
Development
building
of
retained
(P&E)
-
maximum
ten
a
200
grade
a
percent
that
that
building
800
)
a
construct
3
high
050
.
with
by
in
new
the
than
69
Environmental
Uses
applicant
P for
‘significant’
than
.site
retained
require
arequire
feet
retains
maximum 5
for
)
feet
.
identified
allowallow
050
)morecall
5
the
seven
.
The
the
110
more
Permit
18
the&
.
26
to
30
5
:Activities
.exceed
of
standards
.standards
standardsstandards
standards
requires
proposal.
requests&
is
be
the
no
5
of
state
&
.
from
amount
F
wall
allowedis
.
the
18
090
for
toslopes
060
be
Removal
Here
proposed
an
percent
and
for&
natural
Exceptions
.
percent
to
.
to
façade
,
Creek,
B
3
050.
.
request
application Variance
.
considered
Physical
Variance
030
5
TheTheTheTheTheThe
Limited
cut
isset
the
.
.
18
.
10
portion
Tree
5
..
(AMC
18
Twin
32
..oooooo
current
Six
1818
to
AAAA A
The
Clarke Family Residence
329 Granite Street
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for
Flood Plain Corridor Development
Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints
Water Resource Protection Zone Limited Activities and Uses Permit
Variance to Lot Coverage
Variance to Flag Driveway Development Standards
January 7, 2022
Development Review Permit for the construction of Dr. Joseph and Katherine Clarkes residence
Property Address: 329 Granite Street
Map and Tax Lot:39 1E 08DD; 704
Property Owner:Joseph and Katherine Clarke
301 Hillcrest Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Architect: Andrew Ballard
310 Cambridge Way,
North Liberty, IA 52317
Landscape Architect:Kencairn Landscape Architecture
147 Central Avenue
Ashland, OR 97520
Engineering and Geotech: Marquess and Associates
PO BOX 490
Medford, OR 97501
Contractor: Jovick Construction
249 A Street, Ste A
Ashland, OR 97520
Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457
Medford, OR 97501
Request:
The request is for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the construction of a new
single-family residential home on a vacant parcel at 329 Granite Street (39 1E 08DD; 704). The
development of the property requires a Floodplain Development Permit, a Hillside DevelopmentPermit,
a Limited Activity and Uses Permit review in the Water Resource Protection, a Variance to the maximum
grade of a flag driveway, and a Variance to lot coverage standards in the WR zoning district portion of
the property. A Tree Removal permit is required for removal of nineteen significant trees.
Property Details:
The subject property is on the west side of Granite Street, west of the S Pioneer Street intersection with
Granite Street and southwest of the Winburn Way and Granite Street intersections. The property is a
Page 1 of 41
legal lot of record that was part of a tract created via Major Land Partition filed in 1988. At that time,
there were easements for utilities, access, and dedicated serving this parcel and adjacent parcels. Those
easement areas are shown upon the partition plan recorded in May 2004 which permitted the 17-acre
tract to be divided into two parcels. The subject property recorded as Parcel 1 (3.22 acres) and the
remaining area, Parcel 2 dedicated to the city of Ashland as open space (see attached PA-2004-057).
The property is a 3.22-acre, vacant
parcel that is split zoned, Rural
Residential (RR-.5) and Woodland
Resource (WR). The properties to the
south are zoned RR-.5 and WR. The
properties to the west are zoned WR
and WR-20. These properties are
designated public open spaces
(Burnson Property) and private open
space along the southwest corner of
the property. The property to the
north is part of the Burnson Property
to the west. The parcels further north
are zoned RR-.5. The properties to the east are zoned R-1-10. All directly adjacent residential properties
are occupied by residential uses their and associated accessory structures.
The property is accessed by a 15-foot paved, 20-foot clearwidth shared driveway that serves six other
parcels. The property does not have frontage upon Granite Street.
The subject property was created through a land donation process. This lot could not be created under
present zoning ordinances and regulations. The pre-existing lot of record has slopes greater than 25
percent and the identified buildable area from the city’s records includes areas of more than 35 percent
slopes. A topographical survey of the property was obtained, and it has been determined that the
property has an average slope of approximately 65.5 percent.
Twin Creek is a small ephemeral stream that is bisected by the Ashland Lateral of the Talent Irrigation
District system is present on the northern half of the property. There are two branches of Twin Creek on
the adopted Physical Constraints maps. The northern branch has a more defined swale with a defined
channel nearer the west property line. To the south is the southern branch of Twin Creek. This portion
of Twin Creek contains no evidence of riparian type vegetation and presents as a swale on the
topographical maps and on the ground. The mapped corridors of these streams intersect approximately
80-feet south of the existing shared driveway. The creek parallels the north property where it is culverted
under the private driveway. The creek daylights through the yard area of the property to the east. The
creek is culverted again under Granite Street and the Parks Department facilities yard, eventually
daylighting into Ashland Creek.
The property is heavily forested and the majority of the trees on the property are smaller diameter.
There are 330 trees that are more than six-inches in diameter at breast height. There are numerous
Page 2 of 41
larger stature trees on the property as well. The trees include Madrone, Oak, Douglas Fir and Ponderosa
Pine trees.
Proposal:
The proposal is for the construction of a single-family residence on the vacant parcel. The majority of the
property has slopes of more than 35 percent and requires a Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit for Hillside Development on lands with Severe Constraints.
The driveway and underground utilities extend into the water resource protection zone buffers for Twin
Creeks and the south branch, both intermittent/ephemeral streams. The driveway extension is within
the riparian zone and necessitates a limited-activities and uses review for building, paving, and grading
activities for new private access and utilities.
A Flood plain Development Permit is required for the utilities and driveway crossing of the south branch
of Twin Creek.
The driveway grade is more than 15 percent but less than 18 percent for a portion of the 800+ foot long
driveway in two locations, this requires variance to driveway grade limits for flag driveways.
A variance to the maximum lot coverage on the WR zoned portion of the property is requested.
Lastly, a tree removal permit to remove trees from the Flood Plain corridor of Twin Creek, and removal
approval of trees for wildfire fuel reduction and request for removal trees that are considered significant.
Page 3 of 41
There are a number of smaller diameter fuels that are proposed for removal due to their proximity to
the retaining walls and/or location within the driveway or building envelope area.
The existing access to the property is from the private driveway that extends from Granite Street to the
property, the access is provided via easements that were clarified in 1988. This driveway serves seven
lots, including the existing parcel. The residences at 295, 303, 309, 311, 313, 317, 315, 321, the subject
parcel, and 333 Granite Street are all legal lots of record occupied by residences and accessory structures
parcels. This is a preexisting, nonconforming situation that is not being modified as part of this proposal.
The non-conforming developments chapterAMC 18.1.4.040.C. states that upon receiving approval, the
non-conforming access can be made to conform. In this case, there is not a way to bring the number of
lots accessed from the private drivewayinto conformance as the driveway is legal access for the existing
lots.
Physical Constraints Review:
The average slope of the property is 64.5 percent slopes. Development of slopes greater than 25 percent
requires Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for hillside development. The majority
of the property is also over 35%. Properties over 35% are considered severe constraints. The property
has silty sand soils of decomposed granite. The property and the adjacent properties are underlain by
hard, Jurassic granite. There are no mapped faults or other major geologic structures present on any of
the geologic maps of the area and none were evidenced during site reconnaissance. The native slopes
are relatively uniform with no slope failures observed. There were no indications of groundwater
seepage or springs. It is estimated that groundwater is at a depth of 30-feet or greater. The geotechnical
reports find that the site is suitable for development. The lot is steep and has potential for shallow, hard
granite, if the geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into the plans and construction, the risks
are minimized.
Great care and concern consideration were taken to determine the best path for the driveway extension
that had theleast amount of disturbance on the north branch of Twin Creek. The home is proposed to
be constructed in the area of the property that has the least slopes.
Flood Plain Development:
There is construction of the driveway that crosses the south branch of the Twin Creek corridor.
Development within 10-feet of the centerline of the ‘stream’ is the flood plain. There is not a defined
centerline or channel. The proposed crossing has been engineered to not impede the flow of potential
surface waters.
Driveway Grade:
The driveway is greater than 50-feet in length. According to definitions, a Drive, Flag: Is a driveway that
serves a single lot or parcel and is greater than 50-feet in length… the driveway is substantially greater
than 50-feet in length and serves a single parcel. The flag driveway standards found in AMC 18.5.3.060.F.
state that the 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. Due to the steep slopes of the property, the location of the riparian preservation area,
variance to this code section is requested to allow for two segments of the driveway to exceed 15
Page 4 of 41
percent. One segmenthas a 17.9 percent slope (see Civil Engineering Sheets C and a segment that is 300
feet, and another segment that is 150-feet in length and is also 17.9 percent.
Flag Driveway Development Standards Variance:
The driveway is greater than 50-feet in length and is required to be developed to flag driveway standards.
There are a number of standards found in the flag driveway code that present difficulties in development
of a non-flag lot driveway that is longer than 50-feet. There are variances required for the screening of
the flag driveway, and a variance to the maximum length of flag driveways.
Water Resource Protection Zone:
Twin Creek consists of two swales without a defined channel. The location of the property's "frontage"
upon the private driveway is where Twin Creek is culverted. Above the culvert, Twin Creek, separates
into the two branches. The more pronounced swale is present along the north side of the property, there
is vegetation within the swale that are riparian types. The southern branch of Twin Creek is less
pronounced and there is not vegetation or hydrology present indicative of a stream. Twin Creek has very
seasonal flows, largely influenced by the Talent Irrigation District distribution calendar or major flooding
events.
To access the property, extension of the driveway is necessary. To develop the driveway and the utilities,
disturbance of the 30-foot stream bank protection zone of Twin Creek is unavoidable. A Limited Uses
and Activities Permit review is required.
Tree Removal:
The site's trees are typical species found in the Siskiyou foothills. These include Madrone, Oak, Douglas
Fir, and Ponderosa Pine trees. There are 330 trees more than six inches in diameter at breast height
(DBH) on the property. There are a number of deciduous trees that are less than 12-inches DBH and and
numerous conifer trees that are less than 18-inches. A Wildfire Prevention Plan has been submitted and
reviewed by the Ashland Fire and Rescue’s Wildfire Division Chief. Smaller diameter trees consistent with
the wildfire plan are being removed in advance of fire season and construction.
With this application, there are trees proposed for removal that are required to be removed due to their
location and the impacts of proposed development. Trees proposed for removal are in the path of the
proposed driveway, are in the building envelope, or within the required 30-foot buffer from the
residence, are in poor condition, or the impacts of construction will irreparably harm the trees. There
are no specimen trees or trees of stellar quality that would necessitate preservation or redesign of the
driveway, building envelope area, and proposed residence.
Conclusion:
With the construction team ready to begin the site development upon receipt of approval, the property
owners are serious about the design, and layout, the proposed mitigation measures to assure safety to
them the property owners and to their immediate neighbors.
All of the zone setbacks are substantially exceeded. The proposed building design has low pitched
rooves, stepped foundations, natural color schemes, switchback driveway that includes fire apparatus
turning radii and parking, installation of a fire hydrant, fire suppression system, and use of low-
Page 5 of 41
flammability construction materials such as metal siding and roofing, treated wood, concrete and metal
railings and fencing all measures to limit the impacts from the site development have been considered.
It can be found that the property which is one of the last residentially zoned parcels of land created prior
to the Hillside Development ordinance, and is a complex, environmentally sensitive, private parcel that
has been intended for residential development since prior to the adoption of codes that limit
development when there are slopes of more than 35 percent.
It can be found that the project team including two Geotechnical Experts, structural and civil engineering,
landscape architecture, professional building design, water resource professional, and longtime local
contractor that has built other homes on the steep granitic hillsides that make up west Ashland’s forest
interface took the adherence to the Physical & Environmental Constraints development standards
seriously and provided areduction of impacts through construction techniques. These include an
engineered / professionallydesigned storm water system that slow, treats and meters any stormwater
generated by the structure and impervious surfaces. The residence also complies with most design
regulations with a structure that is responsive to the topographical and access constraints; expensive
area of the property will remain in a natural state; with an excess of lot coverage when considering the
aggerate property area. It can be found that strict adherence to all of the regulations of the 2021 Ashland
Land Development ordinance would prevent the development of a residence on this property.
Though proposal will change the scenery of the area, the project team has strived to develop the
complicated property with the utmost care and reduction to the natural state of the property while still
providing a safe, accessible, generally compliant single-family home for the Clarke family.
On the following pages are findings of fact addressing the city of Ashland Land Development Ordinance
as it applies to the property at 329 Granite Street.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
Findings of Fact:
Ashland Municipal Code for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review:
18.3.10.060 Land Classifications.
A.5. All areas within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any stream identified as a Land Drainage Corridor
on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Floodplain Corridor Lands Maps.
Page 6 of 41
B. Hillside Lands are areas defined as Hillside Lands on the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Hillside Lands and Severe Constraints map and which have a slope of 25 percent or greater.
C. Wildfire Lands
D. Severe Constraints Lands are all lands with a slope greater than 35 percent
18.3.10.050 Approval 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.
Finding:
The proposed residence is sited in a manner to have the least amount of disturbance by using cuts for
construction instead of fill material to construct the driveway access to the buildable area.
The slope analysis (see Slope Analysis sheet L 1.3) which shows the approximate location of the building
envelope area, and the proposed areas of disturbance are in the areas of the property with the least
slope.
There is a substantial about of excavation necessary to achieve functional driveway grades and create a
cut pad foundation. Every attempt was made to limit the amount of structural fill and downhill retaining
walls. The proposed driveway construction is largely cut into the hill and the cuts are retained, cutting
the driveway into the more structurally sound hillsidelimits the amount of artificial fill necessaryto
develop the property. The potential impacts from construction and the adverse permanent impacts to
the subject property and nearby areas has been addressed in the planning, design, civil and structural
engineering.
The proposed residence substantially exceeds all setbacks which reduces the potential impacts to the
property and nearby areas reducing the visual impact of the home (see attached graphics). The proposed
development makes every attempt to reduce the impacts of development and reduce the height, length,
and number of retaining walls and paved surface necessary to create a single driveway that meets all
the fire apparatus codes and access needs to get to the identified building envelope area.
The construction of a two-story residence with a basement reducesthe 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 provides an outdoor living area without creating a large, flat pad.
The positioning, roofline style, generally low profile considering the steepness of the property 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, within the identified building envelope location. The
proposed residence is substantially (more than 50-feet) from any of the adjacent properties.
Page 7 of 41
Through the application of the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, the oversight of a geotechnical
expert, acivil 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 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 proposed driveway crossing of the south branch of Twin Creek has been designed by an engineer
and are designed in a manner that will not increase the upstream flood height elevation. There is not a
flow of water in the creek and there is no physical evidence there has been flow in many years. The
proposed crossing has been designed in a manner that won’t be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and
accommodate expected overflow.
Tree removal to reduce fuel loads and implement a Wildfire Prevention and Control plan that complies
with the requirements of Ashland Fire and Rescue and Oregon Department of Forestery.
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.
Finding:
The project design team including the geotechnical expert, the landscape architect, the civil engineer,
and contractor have constructed upon Ashland's hillside lots numerous time. All potential hazards,
including, erosion from the hillside, wildfirehazards, and reduced impacts to the riparian 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 Applied Geotechnical Engineering dated January 28, 2021. 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 landslide or slope failure.
The foundation has been 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 north side of the development area, a track-out prevention pad will be
provided at the entrance of the driveway with the shared driveway.
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.
Page 8 of 41
The driveway crossing is proposed at right angles to the mapped creek corridor. Fill for the driveway
cross and the driveway crossing are designed as required by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. The
fill will be retained and kept to a minimum to construct the crossing and the fire apparatus access.
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.
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.
Finding:
The location of the proposed residence, the proposed driveway location, increased retaining wall heights
to support the cut and intentional reduction in the amount of fill, selective tree removal and tree
preservation all contribute to reducing the impacts of the proposed development.
The proposal incorporates 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.
The site is heavily treed reduction of fuel loads in the wildfire land overlay and the protection of healthy,
preservable trees reducing adverse impacts.
A fire truck apparatus access and turn around are proposed. There will be residential sprinklers and a
private fire hydrant. The property owners have proposed an indoor pool area that will provide
emergency fire fighting water outflow. This pool is within the footprint of the residence and is not an
outdoor pool, thus the preservation of water due to limited evaporation. The proposed fire safety
measures demonstrate all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce adverse impacts on the
environment.
Implementation of the wildfire prevention and control plan will increase fire safety for the subject
property and the adjacent properties.
18.3.10.080 Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands
A. Standards for Fill in Flood Plain Corridor Lands.
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), and Oregon
Residential Specialty Code (ORSC), where applicable.
Page 9 of 41
Finding:
There is no fill proposed within 10-feet of the intermittent stream which is identified as a land
drainage corridor.
2.The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in
AMC 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill.
Finding:
There is no fill within 10-feet of the drainage corridor.
3.The amount of fill in the Flood Plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other
material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following:
a.Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot.
Finding:
No structures are proposed within 10-feet of the land drainage corridor.
b.Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and
private street and driveway construction.
Finding:
The base and paving materials for the driveway cross the land drainage corridor. A culvert
is proposed for the crossing.
c.Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
Finding:
There is no new landscape material proposed within the flood plain protection area.
d.A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
Finding:
There is less than 50 cubic yards of fill material within 10-feet of creek.
e.The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the
above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto
the site, regardless of the number of permits issued.
Finding:
Page 10 of 41
There is not 50 cubic yards of fill necessary.
4.If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in subsection 18.3.10.080.A.3,
above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent
necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be
obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood Plain Corridor.
Finding:
Not applicable.
5.Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
Finding:
See the Civil drawings which provide adequate drainage to stabilize any onsite fill.
6.Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the
Flood Plain Corridor as feasible.
Finding:
No fill to raise elevations for a building site are proposed.
B. Crossings. A crossing of any waterway identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to
section 18.3.10.070, Official Maps, (e.g., for streets, property access or utilities) must be designed by an
engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of AMC 15.10, or where no floodway has
been identified, to pass a 100-year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The
engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the crossing will be blocked by debris in a severe
flood, and accommodate expected overflow. The crossing shall be at right angles to the stream channel to
the greatest extent possible. Fill for stream crossings shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve
property access, but is exempt from the limitations in subsection 18.3.10.080.A, above.
Finding:
The driveway crossing of the south branch of Twin Creek has been designed by an engineer. The engineer
has considered the probability of the crossing being blocked by debris in a severe flood and
accommodate expected overflow. The crossings are generally at right crossings to the stream channel
to the greatest extent feasible.
C. Elevation of Non-Residential Structures.
Finding:
Not applicable.
Page 11 of 41
D. Elevation of Residential Structures.
Finding:
Not applicable.
E.Structure Placement.To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood
Plain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood Plain Corridor area, then
development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding.
Finding:
No structures are proposed to be in the flood plain corridor area.
F. Residential Structure Placement.
Finding:
Not applicable.
G. New Non-Residential Structures.
Finding:
Not applicable.
H. Building Envelopes.
Finding:
The existing building envelope area and the proposed area of construction of the residence is outside
the flood plain corridor.
I. Basements.
Finding:
Not applicable.
J. Hazardous Chemicals. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals
is not permitted in Flood Plain Corridor Lands.
Finding:
Page 12 of 41
Not applicable.
K. Fences. Fences shall be located and constructed in accordance with subsection 18.3.11.050.B.3.
Fences shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted
pursuant to section 18.3.10.070, Official Maps. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated
floodway.
Finding:
There is not a floodway on the property there are no fences that cross the drainage corridor.
L.Decks and Other Structures.
Finding:
Not applicable.
M.Local Streets and Utilities. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to
the Flood Plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood Plain Corridor, except for crossing the
Corridor, except as provided for in chapter 18.3.11, Water Resources Protection Zones (Overlays), or in
the Flood Plain Corridor as outlined below.
Finding:
The proposed driveway and utilities are adjacent to the flood plain corridor except where crossing the
drainage. This is permitted through the Limited Uses review in the WaterResource Protection zone.
1.Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood Plain Corridor.
Finding:
Not applicable.
2.Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall
not be permitted to utilize this exception. (Ord. 3191 § 17, amended, 11/17/2020)
Finding:
Not applicable.
18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands
A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands.
1.Buildable Area. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area.
Finding:
Page 13 of 41
There was a ‘generously sized’ building envelope provided in the 2004 driveway construction
physical constraints review permit. The approval findings note a specific building envelope will
be required when a future home is planned. The building envelope location approved in 2004 is
not in the area of least slope. The proposed residence is partially within the approved envelope
but is situated further south where there is area of less slope (see Slope Analysis sheet L 1.3) and
the proposed location minimizes disturbance area on a large acre parcel, and preserves the
maximum number of trees while considering the location of the property within the urban
interface and Wildfire Hazards Zone.
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation of the site by Robin Warren from Applied Geotechnical
Engineering & Geologic Consulting dated January 28, 2021, and further assured by Rick Swanson,
P.E., from Marquess and Associates, the property, and the proposed area of development is
stable for construction and with the recommendations of the geotechnical experts, theproposal
has minimized impacts.
2.Building Envelope. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a
building envelope with a slope of 35 percent or less.
Finding:
The lot is a pre-existing parcel of record with a conceptual building envelope approved in 2004.
A slope analysis was conducted using the topographical survey data obtained by the present
property owners and it has been found that the proposed location of the residence is in the areas
of the least slope and outside of the riparian protection zones. Buildable areas are required in
the areas of least slope.
3.New Streets and Driveways. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on
lands of less than or equal to 35 percent slope with the following exceptions:
a.The street is indicated on the Street Dedication map.
Finding:
The proposed access is a driveway.
b.The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35 percent slope
does not exceed a length of 100 feet.
Finding:
The proposed driveway is considered a flag driveway due the length of the driveway being
more than 50-feet. The majority of the property exceeds a 35 percent slope. An exception
to this standard is sought.
Page 14 of 41
4.Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or
partitions, the following additional information is required: a geotechnical study prepared by a
geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development.
Finding:
Two geotechnical experts have reviewed the property and prepared geotechnical evaluations of
the site. Those geotechnical evaluations are provided with the application site. The geotechnical
experts have indicated that the site is stable for the proposed use and development.
B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as Hillside shall provide
plans conforming to the following items.
1.All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on
Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform
to the International Building Code and be consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Erosion
control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from
disturbed areas.
Finding:
Rick Swanson, P.E. at Marquess and Associates provided geotechnical oversite. Mr. Swanson has
reviewed and supports (see attached letter) the grading, erosion control, drainage, and retaining
wall plans that have been designed by himself and others with demonstrable expertise in the
development of Hillside Lands. The plans provided demonstrate compliance with the standards
from the Land Use Ordinance.
Erosion control is further achieved through a series of on-grade waddles, sediment fencing and
temporary catchment areas. These systems are designed to ameliorate storm water flow
intensity, remove sediments from the water while keeping storm water flows on the site to
continue the normal surface flows of water on the hillside. The proposed measures protect the
balance of the natural systems on the site.
The proposed erosion control measures are consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and
that the site has been developed with a cut pad foundation and structural retaining walls which
minimize the solids and runoff from disturbed areas.
2.Timing of Improvements.
Finding:
The proposal is for the development of a single-family residence and the driveway toaccess the
residence. The timing of improvements prevents developments of things other than single family
homes on individual lots between May and October. The development of the property with
permitted uses appears to be is exempt from this section of the code.
Page 15 of 41
3. Retention in natural state. an area equal to 25 percent of the total project area, plus the
percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural
state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use
of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000- square-
foot lot with an average slope of 29 percent, 25 percent plus 29 percent equals 54 percent of the
total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater
than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged.
Finding:
The average slope of the property is 64.57 percent. (.002989 x 10 x 6957 / 3.22 = 64.57)
The project area is 3.22 acres (140,263.2 SF)
25 percent of the total project area (140,263.2 SF) is 35,065.8 SF
25 + 64.57 = 89.57 percent of the total project area
89.57 percent of 3.22 acres is 2.88 acres or 125,633.75 SF.
The proposed area of the site to be retained in a natural state is 97,346square feet. This is less
than required and an square feet an exception to this standard is sought.
4. Grading-Cuts.On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards
shall apply.
a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which
they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and
erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional
equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes
are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion
control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and
revegetated.
Finding:
No unretained cut slopes will be created. The vertical cut slopes are in the decomposed
granite hillside and will be stacked rock, versa-lock, and other structural retaining walls.
b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, oryard areas, greater
than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed
a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow
for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a
maximum vertical height of 15 feet. The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining
walls shall be located a minimum setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from the
nearest property line.
Finding:
The lot is very steep, with an average slope of 65 percent, and all cut slopes shall be
retained. Due to the steepness, the terraced cut faces exceed the maximum of five-feet.
Page 16 of 41
The total cut slopes exceed the maximum vertical height of 15 feet due to the steep
topography and the necessary cuts to achieve driveway grades, cross slope and maximum
preservation of the largest, healthiest of the sites trees. Exception to this standard is
requested.
c.Cut slopes for structure foundations which reduce the effective visual bulk, such as split
pad or stepped footings, shall be exempted from the height limitations of this section.
Finding:
The proposed residence is cut into the hillside alongthe area of least slope of the property
using a split pad foundation. All retaining walls adjacent to the structure are the structural
retaining walls. The structure has stepped footings and the walls are part of the structural
footing for the residence.
d.Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan,
introduction of topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The
vegetation used for these areas shall be native, or species similar in resource value to native
plants, which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in
providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings, and cascading vine-
type plantings may be appropriate.
Findings:
The planting plan identifies the new plantings for the areas of disturbance from the
construction of the driveway, the retaining walls, and the residence. All terraced areas
will be revegetated with ornamental plants. The areas directly adjacent to the residence
where the soil has been disturbed are proposed to be re-seeded with native plant
mixture. See Sheet L 1.5A. B.for the erosion control revegetation plan. The areas of
disturbance in the riparian area have a separate riparian zone complaint landscape plan.
See Sheet L 1.8.
5.Grading - Fill. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards
shall apply.
a.Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope
area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest
property line.
Finding:
No unretained fill slopes are proposed. All fill slopes have structural retaining walls.
b.Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional
equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with organic mulch
Page 17 of 41
such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is incomplete contact
with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall
be securely anchored to the slope following the manufacturer's recommendations.
Finding:
No un-retained fill slopes are proposed. The fill slopes have vertical retaining walls.
There is temporary hydro-seed mitigation vegetation that consists of Rye Grass. A
permanent hydroseed erosion control zone including fescues, white yarrow, and micro-
clover is proposed. A wood fiber cover to assist the establishment of the riparian
vegetation is proposed.
henever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When
c.W
determined that it is necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed
by a geotechnical expert.
Finding:
The utilities are not being installed on fill slopes. The utilities are proposed to be
connected to the public infrastructure in the private driveway and out to Granite Street.
The utilities will generally follow the driveway. The utilities are in locations that are
proposed to limit the amount of disturbance.
d.Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in
resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be
provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating the long-
term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on
disturbed areas.
Finding:
No un-retained fill slopes are proposed. See Sheet L 1.5.A. B. and L 1.8 for revegetation
planting plans.
6.Revegetation Requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut
and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the signature of
a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be
installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation.
Finding:
The proposed landscape plan demonstrates that all areas of disturbance are proposed to be
revegetated with a native seed mix or with ornamental plants known for the erosion control root
and vegetation type.
Page 18 of 41
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures.
a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control,
including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping shall be
maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-
of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to
ensure the maintenance of measures.
Finding:
The landscaping will be maintained in perpetuityby the home owners.
b. Security.
Finding:
The lot was part of a larger parcel area created in 1988, the parent parcel was further
divided, and creating the subject parcel in 2004. The performance bond will be paid
prior to building permit issuance is determined to be necessary.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the
following factors.
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building
pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad.
Finding:
Structural retaining walls and landscape retaining walls to support the necessary amount
of fill on the downhill side of the driveway, and in a limited scope around the structure,
are necessary to create a building area, driveway accessing the site, and the parking pad.
b. & c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
Finding:
Based on the Geological Report fromApplied Geotechnical Engineering dated January 28,
2021, and Marquess & Associates, the two Geotechnical Expertsdetermined there are no
hazardous or unstable portions of the site. There is no physical evidence on the site of
any hazardous or unstable portions of the site where development is proposed. There are
no hazardous or unstable areas off site that would impact the proposed home and
driveway development.
d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a
reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large
lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in
the natural state of the original slope.
Page 19 of 41
Finding:
No large yard area, lawn area, or similar is proposed on the hillside slopes. There are
walkout decks and terraced patios to provide property access and firefighter access
around the structure. The proposed building pad accommodates the proposed residence,
the garage, and a pool area within the footprint of the residence. The primary source of
disturbance is the development of an adequate width driveway for fire apparatus access.
Excepting the driveway, the retaining walls, and the residence the steeply sloped lot area
is retained in a natural state.
9.Inspections and Final Report.Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature
of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual
structures, the project geotechnical expert 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, as per 18.3.10.090.A.4.j were conducted by the project
geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project.
Finding:
Periodic inspection of the property and construction consistent with the recommendations and
conducted by the geotechnical engineerwill be obtained. The final inspection report completed
by the geotechnical expert will be provided prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
See attached geotechnical reports provided by AGEGC, Engineer, Robin Warren dated January,
2021, subsequent review letters from Marquess & Associates, Rick Swanson, P.E.,dated April
2021 and December 21, 2021.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage.
Finding:
The surface and groundwater drainage on the site will be directed into the city’s storm drain system and
designed in accordance with the Geotechnical Experts recommendations. The grading and drainage plan
addresses the direction of stormwater and were designed by a registered Oregon Civil Engineer.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to
the following requirements.
1.Inventory of Existing Trees.
Finding:
An inventory of the sites treeswas conductedin 2021. There are 330 trees which are greater
than six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger. The predominate species are
Madrone, Pine, Fir, and Oak.
Page 20 of 41
See Sheet L 1.2. The tags on the trees correspond to the number on the plan sheet.
2.Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation.
Finding:
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 sites slope stabilizing trees. The tree analysis
identified the health of the trees and provided suggestions as to which trees should be
removed.
Of the more than 330 trees on the site, more than 150 are Madrones, the other tree species
include Douglas Fir, and Oak. There are also Ponderosa Pines, Cedar, and an apple tree. The
trees range in size from the smallest of DBH to the largest trees at 24 inches DBH.
3.Tree Conservation in Project Design.
Finding:
The property will remain heavily treed following the removal of the small diameter fuels (6
inches to 12-inch DBH trees).Of the 330 trees on site, nineteen (19) significant trees are
proposed for removal. The other significant trees are incorporated into the project design.
There are a number of trees proposed for removal through a wildfire hazard fuel reduction
plan.
4.Tree Protection.
Finding:
There are tree protection zones included on the site plan, within these tree protection zones
there are recommendations 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 will oversee any potential site
disturbance within the tree protection zone.
The outlines of the recommend tree protection zone and the fence boundaries are indicated
on the plan. The tree protection zone referenced herein is speaking to the tree protection
Page 21 of 41
fencing plan provided and not a generic fence at the dripline of the tree as the driplines and
recommend tree root protection zone is within the construction zone.
The proposal preserves the largest number of trees while accommodating construction of
the driveway, retaining walls, and residence.
5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on
a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is
located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may
approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions.
a. The tree is located within the building envelope.
Finding:
The trees that are proposed for removal is because they are within the building
envelope/footprint.
b.The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area.
Finding:
Most of the trees proposed for removal are within the proposed driveway or within the areas
of the retaining walls adjacent to the driveway.
d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes
an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in subsection
18.3.10.090.D.2.
Finding:
There are smaller diameter trees shown for removal, some have disease or are dead. These
trees are typically 8-inch DBH and smaller Madrones, Pine and Fir.
e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening
to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional.
Finding:
As noted above, the trees proposed for removal are largely within the driveway area or
directly adjacent to the driveway where retaining walls are required.
f. The tree is identified for removal as part of an approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan
per subsection 18.3.10.100.A, or with the exception of significant trees the tree removal is
Page 22 of 41
recommended by the Fire Code Official, and approved by the Staff Advisor, as part of a
comprehensive fuels reduction strategy to implement a General Fuel Modification Area
consistent with subsection 18.3.10.100.B.
Finding:
Of the 330 trees on site that are greater than six inches DBH. There are 155 total trees
proposed for removal that range between 6-inches to 24-inches DBH. There are 45 trees
proposed for removal as part of a Fire Prevention and Control Plan and 19 trees that are
greater than 12-inches DBH.
The trees proposed for removal will not have a significant impact on the erosion, soil stability
or flow of waters.
6.Tree Replacement.
Finding:
Of the 19 significant trees proposed for removal, there are 16 deciduous trees proposed to
be removed and two conifer trees. The proposed mitigation trees are all within the Water
Resource Protection Zone enhancement area and there are no replacement conifers
proposed.
E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside
Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards.
1.Building Envelopes. All newly created lots, either by subdivision or partiion, shall
contain building envelopes conforming to the following standards.
Finding:
This lot pre-dates the Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance and there are
very limited areas of less than 35 percent slopes. The proposed construction and access
are within the general area the “approved building envelope” from 2004 (see sheet L
2.0.)
The area of the least slope is the top of the toe slope where the residence is proposed.
The alternative is within the Water Resource Protection zone area of Twin Creek where
there is less slope.
This application includes a slope analysis which demonstrates the location of the
proposed residence is in the area of least slope where some of the slopes are 35
percent and lower.
Page 23 of 41
The proposed building area is in the general location as shown in 2004 and though
recommended to avoid ridgeline exposures, it is the ridgeline which has the least
slopes.
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 another
feature perpendicular to that grade. Maximum hillside building height shall be 35
feet.
The proposed structure is a two-story with basement-level garage. The residence
is cut into the slope toreduce the downhill wall massing. The maximum building
height is less than 35 feet above natural grade. This is evidenced in the
architectural elevations (See sheet A 2.1)
b.Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk.
i.Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to
allow the structure to more closely follow the slope.
ii.Reduce building mass by utilizing below-grade rooms cut into the natural
slope.
Finding:
The proposed residence is cut into the hill using a split pad and stepped
footings to allow the structure to follow the slope and the more moderate,
albeit steep, cross slopes of the hillside.
The mass of the building is reduced by utilizing below-grade rooms and
walkout deck areas. The structure is cut into the uphill slope on the
property and uses steep topography to create a below-grade garage area.
The grade of the driveway entering the property at the existing private
driveway and retaining adequate driveway grades for fire apparatus
access determined the grade upon where the garage was set and the
corresponding levels above the garage for the area of the proposed two-
story residence.
The proposed building has stepped pads and structural retaining walls to
allow for anchoring and stability on the steep parcel.
Page 24 of 41
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
Finding:
It can be found that the structure is cut into the hillside and the majority of the
building wall height is less than 20-feet. There is an eastern wall façade that is 26-
feet tall to natural grade. This is at a steep location where natural grade falls away
leaving the wall taller than 20-feet. The site grading, landscape architecture and
architectural drawings of the structure demonstrate that the steep lot and cutting
necessary to construct the structure has less than a 20-foot downhill wall height
from natural grade was generally complied with, but there is an exception.
The building design standards intention is largely to reduce the bulk, massing and
scale of the hillside homes and the impacts upon adjacent properties from the
new construction.
The proposed building location is not visible from the immediately adjacent areas
within the 200-foot impact area. The project team reviewed the site location from
various other vantage points and in no case would the downhill wall height in
excess of 20-feet be detected (see Vantage Points exhibit) .
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.
Finding:
The proposed building has horizontal building planes greater than 36-feet. This is
largely to allow for the cutting into the hillside to reduce the height and massing
and impacts to the downhill neighbors.
The roof over the living room area is pitched downhill shorter in depth. The
kitchen/dining roofline is pitched uphill and is stepped back from the roofline that
is pitched downhill.
Also, the structure is setback substantially from any adjacent residences and the
proposal complies with the intent of the Building Design. 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
Page 25 of 41
visual impacts to adjacent properties and the impact from the horizontal planes is
reduced. An exception to this standard is sought.
e.It is recommended that roof forms and rooflines 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.
Finding:
The residence is proposed to have large, low pitch roofs that are broken into
smaller masses. The large, 3.22 acre property has very large setbacks (more than
50-feet from every property line) proposed and the roof lines, though long due to
the size of the residence, the roof is broken into the a form that is reflective of the
steep hillsides. The proposed structure reflects the irregular forms of the
surrounding hillsides. The structure abuts large public and private open space
areas, and impact of the structure are reduced.
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.
Finding:
Lower floor levels are used as decks and outdoor space for the upper floors above.
No vertical supports are present that exceed 12-feet.
g.It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the
predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize the contrast between
the structure and the natural environment.
Finding:
Natural colors selected from the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape
will be used for the exterior paint finishes. The metal roof will be non-reflective
metal or class B or better shingles. The exterior materials consist of natural wood,
metal sidings and stucco.
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.
Finding:
Page 26 of 41
The foundation has been engineered. The engineered foundation plans will be provided with the
building permit set.
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 for open space or
conservation purposes.
Finding:
This section is not applicable now. In 2004, a building envelope was located on the site using the
city of Ashland GIS data. The identified building envelope is in some of the steepest areas of the
property and that application noted a revised envelope may be necessary.
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:
The proposal seeks exceptions to the following code sections:
General Requirements –New Streets and Driveways: 18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.
Retention in Natural State: 18.3.10.B.3.
Grading –Maximum Cut SlopeRetaining Wall Height: 18.3.10.090.B.4.b.
Building Location and Design Standards: 18.3.10.090.E.1.a
Downhill Wall Height Limitation: 18.3.10.090 E.2.c
Horizontal Building Plane Limitation: 18.3.10.090.E.2.d.
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.
Finding:
The proposal requests six exceptions to the development standards for hillside lands. The
exceptions are driven by the steep topography and the presence of two stream corridors,
their respective protection zones occupy a substantial area of the property.
More than 75 percent of the property area, exceeds 35 percent slopes with the average
slope of the property at 64.5 percent. The very steep slopes are a unique aspect because
a parcel with this degree of slope cannot be created under present zoning ordinances.
The regulations in the ordinance do not anticipate 64.5 percent slopes and a majority of
the property exceeds the maximum slopes allowed by ordinance.
Page 27 of 41
When the parcel was created there was a 10-foot buffer zone for Twin Creek. The present
ordinance requires a 30-foot buffer from the centerline of the stream centerline. The
riparian preservation zone limits development to the southern proportion of the property
which is the steeper area on the property, leading to the less steep area which and
primary consists of a ridgeline.
When the parcel was created and partitioned, until the ownership of the present property
owners, a topographical survey of the parcel had never been completed. This detailed
topographical survey, the need to provide adequate fire apparatus access that complies
with present standards, and to determine the ‘buildable area’ led to the driveway and
residence location proposed in this application.
There area very limited areas of the 3.22 acre parcel which is less than 35 percent slopes.
Those are within the riparian preservation areas and atop the ridge where the property
has between 25 – 35 percent slope. This an unusual situation due to the limitations on
development in the riparian areas and the hillside design standards for buildable areas
that seek to limit development away from ridgelines.
This lot would not be allowed to be created using the current codes for which the
application is now subject too. This is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the standards
that apply to properties with half the amount of slope.
New Streets and Driveways: 18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.
An exception to allow a driveway to cross slopes of more than 35 percent with more than
100-feet of driveway is required. This exception is unavoidable due to the substantial
area of the property, that nearly the entire parcel is more than 35 percent slopes.
Retention in Natural State: 18.3.10.B.3.
Due to the steep average slope of the property and that the Hillside Design standards
seek to restrict development through the implementation of standards that are even
more restrictive than lot coverage standards. The required retention in natural state is
per the code required to be around 90 percent. Due to the steep topography and the
need to install a 15-foot wide paved fire apparatus access, the disturbance area is
consumed with just a small portion of the driveway.
Grading – Maximum Cut Slope Retaining Wall Height: 18.3.10.090.B.4.b.
An exception to the maximum retaining wall height is required. This is due to the
extremely steep topography of the site and that the driveway is proposed to be primary
cut into the hillside which is more stable than a driveway constructed upon fill.
Building Location and Design Standards: 18.3.10.090.E.1.a:
The majority of the property is more than 35 percent slopes. There a few locations where
the slopes are less, and those are within the riparian preservation area and atop the ridge
Page 28 of 41
line. There are no areas of less than 35 percent inthe lower portions of the property.
There are substantial large stature trees in the lower portion of the property between the
riparian area and the ridge where the buildable area is located.
Downhill Wall Height Limitation: 18.3.10.090 E.2.c:
Due to the steep terrain of the site overall and that the downhill wall height is predicated
by the grade of the driveway and the limits on maximum building height, a portion of the
downhill wall is more than 20-feet with a 26-foot exposure in the northeast corner of the
garage.
Horizontal Building Plane Limitation: 18.3.10.090.E.2.d.
The steep and remote location of the property has created difficulties in compliance with
the design standards.
2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under
this chapter.
New Streets and Driveways: 18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.
The exception to the length of the driveway crossing 35 percent slopes is inevitable. The
construction of a fire apparatus access driveway is a greater protection of the resources
than a vacant, heavily trees lot provides.
Retention in Natural State: 18.3.10.B.3.
The property is very steep and this requirement is overly burdensome and the area
of natural state is disturbed just with the driveway alone with no consideration for the
residence. The site plans include the areas beyond the actual construction in the ‘areas
of disturbance’ calculations. Post construction, the proposed mitigation plan provides for
an enhanced riparian area and less fuels loads. This is a greater protection of the
resources than leaving nearly 90 percent of the site undisturbed.
Grading – Maximum Cut Slope Retaining Wall Height: 18.3.10.090.B.4.b.
The proposal exceeds maximum cut slope height and corresponding maximum retaining
wall height. The proposed steep cuts are stabilized with engineered retaining walls. The
use of cuts is a better protection of resources than importing fill and building the driveway
primary upon retaining walls.
Building Location and Design Standards: 18.3.10.090.E.1.a:
The building location has been determined based on an accurate topographical survey of
the property and the building is proposed to be located in the area of the property with
the least slope. This location is slightly south of the previously identified envelope from
2004 but that envelope is in an area of extreme slopes and requires substantial number
of significant trees to be removed. The proposed location preserves the steepest of the
hillside and preserves more of the large stature trees.
Page 29 of 41
Downhill Wall Height Limitation: 18.3.10.090 E.2.c:
The lot is very steep and the building wall corner that exceeds has a large portion of the
downhill wall as the structural, footing for the floor above. The wall is at the tallest point
is 26-feet above natural grade. The majority of the walls are less than 20-feet from natural
grade, at the location of the exception, the grade slopes away steeply. Only a portion of
the structure is greater than 20-feet. The wall where the structure exceeds 20-feet
downhill wall height is more than 100-feet from any adjacent properties, a substantial
amount of vegetation will remain on site, obscuring the wall height from any areas where
it may be visible.
This higher wall height is based on the grade of the driveway leading to the below grade
garage and the need to cut the hillside lower to reduce overall height. A taller wall
segment is a better protection of resources than a house that is taller than allowed.
Horizontal Building Plane Limitation: 18.3.10.090.E.2.d.
The horizontal walls are largely structural retaining walls. Implementation using longer
wall segments instead of shorter segments that require additional cutting to create off-
sets that are not visible or discernable to any of the adjacent properties and protects more
resources.
3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
The requested exceptions are the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of
construction of the proposed driveway, retaining walls, and locating a buildable area on
the property. The proposed exceptions do not block adjacent residential property views,
nor is the public trail system on the adjacent properties affected. The requested
exceptions do not affect the solar access on adjacent properties and the locations of the
walls will have limited visual impacts as the property remains heavily treed post-
construction.
New Streets and Driveways: 18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.
Crossing of 100-feet or more of the property with the driveway is inevitable. The majority
of the property is more than 35 percent slopes and to access the buildable area of the
property, the proposed crossing of the steep slopes is the minimum necessary.
Retention in Natural State: 18.3.10.B.3.
Grading – Maximum Cut Slope Retaining Wall Height: 18.3.10.090.B.4.b:
The steep lot and cutting a fire truck safe driveway beginning at a determined grade
(existing driveway and property intersection) and achieving 15 – 18 percent grade for the
driveway required substantial cuts and some fill. These substantial cuts are proposed to
be retained with structural retaining walls. The walls are stepped but exceed the overall
height and in two areas the total cut bank to be retained exceeds 15-feet.
Page 30 of 41
Building Location and Design Standards: 18.3.10.090.E.1.a:
The proposed building is located in the area of least slopes as identified on the
topographical survey. The design standards seek for the structure to be in areas of 35
percent and less which is generally is. The location is the top of the ridge line which is the
area of least slope thus the minimum necessary. The lower portion of the property is very
steep and the 2004 building area is in the areas of steepest slopes.
The retaining walls on the north property line at the driveway intersection with the
existing private driveway surface where near an adjacent property are to retain the fill
slope of the driveway to build the grade of the intersection up to the grade of the
driveway where it begins cutting uphill to the building pad area.This is the minimum
necessary.
Downhill Wall Height Limitation: 18.3.10.090 E.2.c:
The exceptions requested will result in less depth of cut into the hill with taller walls and
limited distance between the walls. Though not terraced as envisioned in the standards,
the proposed provides equal or greater protection to the steep slopes and preserves
trees.
Horizontal Building Plane Limitation: 18.3.10.090.E.2.d.
The exception to the horizontal plane allows for the house to follow the toe slope and to
be cut into the slope and provide a workable floor area for the property owners, avid
swimmers to have a large enough hillside lot to have their dream home that generally
complies with all of the standards when considering the complexity of developing the
property.
4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical
and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development
Standards for Hillside Lands.
Each 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 3.22 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. The
proposal limits alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of,
any natural environment. The proposal providesfor sensitive development in areas that
are constrained by various natural features and preserves the largest stature, significant
trees, reduces wildfire risks and provides protection of a large acre parcel that has
historically been used for off-grid camping by non-owners. The development of the
Page 31 of 41
property will limit the amount of trespassing and illegal burning that is evidenced on the
property.
The proposed preserves the linear topographic character of the hillside and reduces the
downhill wall heights with cuts to mimic the steep slopes.
The proposed layout and driveway construction and required retention were created to
preserve the integrity of the hillside lands. The proposal reduces the amount of cutting,
scarring and when considering the difficulty of constructing 800+ feet of driveway on
slopes of more than 35 percent.
The proposed residential home construction is sensitive to the adjacent properties and
the impacts of construction by tucking the housing in the south hillslope of the property
while being mindful of the maximum driveway grades and resulting retained cut slopes.
The proposed driveway is based on months of engineering and geologic investigation and
design. The retaining walls required to install adequate vehicular access and fire
apparatus access, which has only gotten more regulated since the parcel’s creation,
dictate that driveway grade and width are the design drivers and that the retaining wall
heights =are designed for structural stability and support first and foremost.
According to the project engineers, taller engineered, structural retaining walls are less
impactful to the site development than shorter terraced courses cutting further into the
hillside the minimum necessary to achieve minimum driveway width and grades for
adequate vehicular access including the construction vehicles, the delivery vehicles,
visitors and adequate emergency vehicle access, turn around and parking area is
provided.
The exceptions allow for reasonable use of the residential property that complements the
natural and visual character of the City on a challenging site.
18.3.10.100 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands
B. Requirements for Construction of All Structures.
The property is within the wildfire overlay.
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.
Page 32 of 41
Sheet L 1.7 is a detailed Fire Prevention and Control Plan. This plan is in review by the Wildfire Division
Chief of Ashland Fire and Rescue. The proposal alsoprovides details regarding theGeneral Fuel
Modification Area in the immediate area of the structure. All newly planted vegetation within 50 feet of
any building or deck does not include species listed on the City’s Prohibited Flammable Plant List. Existing
trees identified on the City’s Prohibited Flammable Plant List will be pruned to provide a ground
clearance of a minimum of eight feet above the ground or one-third of the tree height.
The distance of the property from the street necessitates a fire hydrant and residential fire sprinklers.
The pool provides additional water in the event of fireand a connection to hook fire suppression to the
pool is being sought.
18.3.10.110 Development Standards for Severe Constraints Lands
Finding:
An engineering geologic study of the property was completed by Robin Warren from Applied
Geotechnical Engineering. This study finds that the site is stable for construction and that with the
measures for erosion control and structural stability are implemented the site is suitable for
construction. This study found no evidence of off-site hazards.
See attached Geotechnical Report and subsequent letter of review, inspection schedule and further off-
site evaluation by a separate geotechnical expert, Rick Swanson from Marquess and Associates.
Water Resource Protection Zone
18.3.11.060 Limited Activities and Uses
Permanent alteration of Water Resource Protection
A.3. Building, Paving and Grading Activities:
Zones by grading or by the placement of structures, fill or impervious surfaces may be authorized
as follows:
b. New Private Access and Utilities. The location and construction of private streets,
driveways, and utilities to provide a means of access to an otherwise inaccessible or
landlocked property where no other reasonable, alternate location outside the Water
Resource Protection Zone exists.
Finding:
The proposed impacts to the water resource protection zone are due to the location of
the access to the property for vehicles and utilities. The access location is in the only
location available and without disturbance of the water resource protection zone, the
parcel would be otherwise inaccessible or landlocked.
The stormwater will be captured, treated, slowed and metered back into the Twin Creeks
riparian protection zone where the culvert and the private driveway and the new
driveway intersect.
Page 33 of 41
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 activity 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.
Finding:
The proposed activities are as far away from the larger of the two drainage channels of
Twin Creek as practicable. The proposed design seeks to disturb a limited area of the
water resource protection zone while providing adequate vehicle and fire apparatus
access. The northern branch of Twin Creek has riparian vegetation where asother than a
swale on the ground and a creek shown on the map, there is not evidence of a stream in
the southern branch.
Within the water resource protection zone is 12,159 square feet with the removal or fill
with a total of 2,721 cubic yards of material. The proposal includes a riparian
enhancement plan.
All stormwater will be treated and metered to retain maximum infiltration ofthe sites
stormwater and any additionalstormwater captured will be metered back into the Twin
Creeks drainage system.
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.
Finding:
The property is more than three acres. Theonlylocation to access the parcel is withinthe
riparian zone. The proposed area of development is directly in response to the site
topography and need to allow for fire apparatus access. The proposal impacts the lesser
of the two drainages and largely does not impact the more substantial drainage along the
north property line.
There are 12,159 square feet of disturbance within the Water Resource Protection Zone.
The riparian area is the least slopes of the property and the natural path of the driveway.
The mitigation area is 18,239 square feet.
The majority of the impacts are in the southern branch riparian buffer zone which at the
time of this writing had no evidence of a riparian vegetation. The mitigation area in the
southern branch will introduce riparian species that can survive a more upland
Page 34 of 41
environment. Due to the condition of the riparian area and lack of riparian vegetation,
the proposed impacts and resulting mitigation planting plan improves the riparian area
from its present conditions.
The capture, detention, treatment and release of the storm water will not have a negative
impact and instead of rushes during storm events, the water will captures, slowed and
released into the swale through. This captures, detaines and continues the path of the
potential water source in the southern portion of the riparian area.
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 except where no
practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure
slope stability.
Finding:
Within the stream protection zone, the south branch of Twin Creek does not have a clearly
incised channel and has a low swale profile. Excepting the area along the north property
line where the water resource protection zones are present, and the grade is more gentle,
the majority of the property is steeply sloped and within the water resource protection
zone there are slopes of more than 25 percent to be impacted. There are no practicable
alternatives to accessing the site.
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.
Finding:
The utilities servicing the property enter the parcel at the intersection of the tax lot with
the existing driveway accessing the property will be brought through the project at the
beginning of the proposed driveway. This area is within the riparian buffer zone. Twin
Creek and the tributary are not flood-prone drainages and have been dry for nearly one
full year to the property owner and design team's knowledge.
There are no concerns of exposure to floodwaters.
The proposed storm drain is located in a manner to avoid floodwaters and avoid
accidental discharges. The proposal uses the retaining walls and a series of catch basins
and dispersion pipes to collect and slow the release of stormwater prior to entering the
culvert with the storm water will be released through a metered system into Twin Creek.
Page 35 of 41
All utility systems are designed by an engineering team experienced with constructing in
the hillside zones.
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.
Finding:
The proposal includes riparian habitat restoration and enhancement plan. The proposed
encroachments and the proposed mitigation plan that has been prepared in accordance
with the standards of 18.3.11.110 by a design professional familiar with the requirements.
There is presently a lack of riparian type of vegetation, the proposed plan provides for a
riparian type of planting plan that will survive the seasonality of the creek.
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.
Finding:
The property is a residentially zoned lot and will be occupied by a single-family dwelling.
The proposal is exempt from this standard.
18.5.5.050 Approval Criteria – Variance
Finding:
The proposal request two variances. One variance is to the maximum driveway grade and distance of
the maximum grade (AMC 18.5.3.060.F)and a second variance to maximum lot coverage on a portion
of the property that is WR zoned, the RR-5 portion of the property has less than the maximum coverage
to offset the overage (AMC 18.2.5.030).
AMC 18.5.3.060.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.
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.
Page 36 of 41
Finding:
The variance requests to the grade of the driveway is necessitated by to the physical constraints
of the parcel that the development of the subject property with strict adherence to the code
does not account for the special and unique situation of exceeding the maximum lot steepness
by nearly 2X.There is very steep topography, there are two riparian drainages, and the buildable
area is at the top of the property.
There are a substantial number of significant trees that are preserved with the proposed
driveway layout.
The grade of the driveway as it enters the property determined the beginning gradeof the
driveway, the garage finished floor determined the otherand obtaining a fire apparatus, fire lane
driveway between those grades crosses substantial areas of steep slopes necessitating the
increased driveway grade. The project engineer could not create a less steep driveway that would
not in turn have major impacts on the height of the retaining walls.
When the lot was created in 1988, 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 (See attached ordinances).
This code section does not account for properties that have more than 35 percent slopes over
substantial areas of the site. This code does not account for compliance with fire apparatus access
needs which this proposal provides for. See attached fire apparatus access letter from Sage Fire
Solutions.
2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances
related to the subject site.
Finding:
The variance to the driveway grade is the minimum necessary. The driveway proposal has been
vetted by a Fire Code Official and the Ashland Fire and Rescue Chief (see attachments) and both
have found the driveway complies with required fire apparatus access. The buildable area was
determined based on a topographical survey; the proposed increased driveway grade is due to
the unique physical constraints of the site. The driveway grade is in direct response to the existing
site topography, necessary driveway grades, distance from Granite Street to the buildable area
of the site, and the preservation of significant trees.
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.
Page 37 of 41
Finding:
The proposals benefits allow for a permitted use to develop on the parcel with the utmost
concern for the impacts of the development to the natural state of the property and the
neighborhood while balancing the need for a wide, fire truck/emergency vehicle safe driveway
to access the home. The variance to the driveway gradewill not have a negative impact on the
adjacent properties nor the development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
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 a result of a property line adjustment or land division
approval previously granted to the applicant.
Finding:
The property owners proposing development did not create the steep, residential parcel that
would not be allowed to be created today.
The requested variances are due to the slope of the property and that when the parcel was
created the code requirements limiting driveway grades to less than 18 percent was added at a
later date in time. The maximum grade of driveways prior to the 1990s appears to be 20 percent
which the proposed driveway complies with.
AMC 18.2.5.030. Lot Coverage, 7% + 5% or 200 SF as porous solid surface.
Finding:
The lot coverage variance is necessitated on the WR portion of the property. The RR-.5 portion of the
property has less coverage area than allowed by code.
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.
Finding:
The parcel is steep and has significant topographical constraints, the presence of two riparian
drainages, and is split zoned between a highly restrictive coverage zone (WR) and a less restrictive
(RR-.5). The split zoning and having a large area of the property that is the least steep and yet the
most buildable creates a unique situation.
When the lot was created the applicable zoning appears to have been RR. In the late 1980sthere
were three RR zone with between 7 – 20 percent coverages. In 1982, there is a discussion of
Page 38 of 41
Comprehensive Plan Map modifications were held that discuss changing the zoning of the Granite
Street/Strawberry Lane area from RR to WR it is unclear if the Comprehensive Plan changed or
zoning map as well.
2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances
related to the subject site.
Finding:
At the time of the proposal, it was unclear where the zoning overlay is in proximity to the property
area. The property has a substantial area that is WR zoned which has a very limited coverage area
and a larger area that is RR-5 zoned which allows for more coverage area.
Based on the slope analysis, the WR portion of the property has more of the developable area
and the RR-5 portion is steeper. The requested overage in the WR zone is offset by the lot
coverage in the RR-5 portion of the property being less than allowed. The two areas are
The WR portion of the property has 11.7 percent coverage proposed. This is an increase of 4.7
percent. The RR-.5 portion of the property has 13.7 percent lot coverage. This is 6.3 percent
below the allowed maximum coverage. The balance of the two properties is compliant with the
total coverage of the propertiesand as a whole, the property has less lot coverage than allowed.
This is the minimum necessary.
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.
Finding:
The proposals benefits allow for a permitted use to develop on the parcel with the utmost
concern for the impacts of the development to the natural state of the property and the
neighborhood while balancing the need for a wide, fire truck/emergency vehicle safe driveway
to access the home. The area of least slope for the building area is in the WR zoned portion of
the property. Additionally,the fire truck turn out is in the WR portion of the property due to the
topography, this increase coverage in that portion of the lot that has less allowed coverage area.
The variance to lot coverage is balanced in that the RR-.5 portion of the property is under the
maximum lot coverage by the same amount that the WR portion exceeds coverage requirements
thus balancing out the coverage area of the whole parcel. This will not have any impact on
adjacent properties.
Page 39 of 41
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 a result of a property line adjustment or land division
approval previously granted to the applicant.
Finding:
The property owners proposing development did not create the steep, residential parcel of land
that would not be allowed to be created today.
The parcel lot coverage is overall complied with. The lot coverage variance is due in part to the
grade of the property and that the less steep areas are within the WR zone which leads to more
of the driveway area being located upon the WR zoned portion of the property.
he portion of the property that has RR-.5 zoning and allows up to 20 percent coverage has 13.7
T
percent, and the WR zoned portion of the property has 11.7 percent coverage. The RR-.5 zone
has a seven percent balance and the WR zone has a 4.7 percent overage, the overall balance
between the zones complies with lot coverages.
Attachments:
1)Applied Geotechnical Engineering & Geologic Consulting (AGEGC): Geotechnical
Investigation and Erosion Control Report, January 28, 2021.
2)Marquess & Associates: Rick Swanson, April 30, 2021 and December 2021
3)City of Ashland Electric Distribution Plan
4)Contextual Views of the Property
5)Fire Access Compliance Review: Sage FireSolutions
6)Plan Sets
Coversheet
Architectural
A 0.1 Site Plan
A 1.1 Floor Plans
A 2.1 Elevations
A 3.1 Sections
Civil Plans
C 4.1 Driveway Alignment Plan view
C 4.0 Driveway Profile
Landscape & Site Plans
L 1.0 Site Plan
L 1.1 Grading & Drainage Plan
L 1.2 Tree Protection & Removal Plan
L 1.3 Slope Analysis
L 1.4 Cut/Fill Analysis Plan
L 1.5A./B. Landscape Mitigations Plans
Page 40 of 41
L 1.6 Lot Coverage Exhibit
L 1.7 Fire Prevention and Control Plan
L 1.8 Water Resource Protection Plan
L 1.9 Sections & Details
L 2.0 – 2.4 Comparison of 2004 and 2021 Exhibits
7)Survey 10635
8)Survey 11309
9)Survey 18274
10)2004 Conceptual Building Envelope
11)2004 BLA Memo
12)2004 Driveway Construction Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
(PA2004-074)
13)Land Donation Agreement - Burnson
Page 41 of 41
Zmi{ jvsq Yt xli Lmpp0 Ew Mrhmgexih mr \]ipps{ sr ×Wxviix Zmi{Ø Mqeki
ranit
e
G
329
View Location Key
Street View
76= Kvermxi
Perxivr Lmpp Hvmzi
Gsrxi|xyep Zmi{w
Lantern Hill Drive
/
/
/
/
Rendered View
ranit
e
G
329
View Location Key
Street View
76= Kvermxi
Kvermxi * \[mrfyq
Gsrxi|xyep Zmi{w
Granite & Winburn
/
/
/
/
ranit
e
G
329
View Location Key
Street View
Gsrxi|xyep Zmi{w
\[iwx Jsvo Wxviix
76= Kvermxi
West Fork Street
/
/
/
/
ranit
e
G
329
View Location Key
Street ViewStreet View
Kpirr Zmi{ Hvmzi
76= Kvermxi
Gsrxi|xyep Zmi{w
Glenview Drive
/
/
/
/
Fire Access Findings
329 Granite Street, Ashland
June 22, 2021
The following report addresses the fire apparatus access requirements for a single family home to be built
on the property located at 329 Granite Street in the City of Ashland. This property is in the Wildfire Hazard
Zone and has grades greater than 35%.
There are multiple codes applicable to this property that reference fire apparatus access. The 2019 Oregon
Fire Code applies throughout the state of Oregon. The Ashland Municipal Code provides references for fire
apparatus access both in Chapter 15.28 where the Oregon Fire Code is adopted and in Chapter 18, the
Land Use Code.
The State of Oregon has adopted the 2019 Oregon Fire Code (OFC). The City of Ashland has adopted the
OFC and Appendices A through N, Q and R with City of Ashland amendments via Ashland Municipal Code
15.28.010.
reasonable
The purpose of the OFC is to provide a level of life safety and property protection from the
hazards for fire, explosion or dangerous conditions and to provide a reasonable level of safety to firefighters
and emergency responders during emergency operations. One of the key words in the intent of the OFC is
reasonable. It has long been recognized that not every property or structure cannot meet every detail of the
codes nor can every hazard be prevented, so there are alternatives to the written code that provide that
3)
The following are some of the fire related requirements for this property:
Provide approved fire apparatus access
Provide water supply
Implement fuels reduction for wildfire prevention as indicated in AMC 18.3.10.100 Physical &
Environmental Constraints for Wildfire Lands
Fire Apparatus Access Requirements
The driveway serving the structures on this property is a fire apparatus access route. The following are the
code requirements for this required fire apparatus access.
Chapter 5 and Appendix D address the majority of the access requirements found in the OFC. The City of
Ashland has made a few amendments to the OFC, and there are also fire access requirements found in the
land use code. The following will outline the requirements and exceptions.
1.Approved
walls of the building (OFC 503.1). The fire code official is authorized to modify this for one of three
reasons:
Fire sprinklers are installed throughout the building
1750 Delta Waters Road, Suite 102, PMB 405, Medford, OR 97504 (541) 941.2681
14
329 Granite Street - Page of
Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography,
waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions AND an approved alternative means
of fire protection is provided.
There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group-U occupancies.
2.Fire apparatus access roads are required to be 20 feet wide in the model OFC; however, ORS 368.039
allows the road standards adopted by the local government to supersede standards in the fire codes
and requires consultation with the local fire agency. Through AMC 18.5.3.060 flag drive requirements,
this driveway is permitted to be a minimum clear width of 15 feet with a 12 foot wide paved driving
surface. Obstructions are not permitted within the 15 foot width including landscaping materials.
3.The grade and angles of approach and departure of the fire apparatus access road are required to be
503.2.7 & .8) While the OFC asserts a maximum grade of 10%, it allows a steeper grade as approved
by the fire code official. AMC 18.5.3.060 D specifies that flag drives are permitted to be 15-18% for 200
feet with a variance approval.
The intent of limiting the grade for fire apparatus access is as much about the ability to respond to an
incident quickly and efficiently as it is about the capabilities of the apparatus performance both uphill
and downhill. By limiting the section of the grade to no more than 200 feet, it limits the power needed
for the engine or ambulance to climb the grade and it limits the brake usage to descend the grade. It is
my opinion that the intent of this section of the code from a fire apparatus perspective is that there
could be multiple sections of up to 18% grade up to 200 feet length on a driveway depending on the
total length of the driveway and the distance between the segments. While the code does not specify
the distance between segments, it may not be reasonable to have two 200 foot segments separated by
20 feet, but it may be reasonable for example to have two 200 foot segments separated by 200 feet.
4.Construction of the fire apparatus access road is required to support the imposed load of fire apparatus
weighing up to 75,000 pounds. (OFC D102)
5.-around. (AMC 18.5.3.060 J)
6.
structures exceeding 24 feet in height unless an approved automatic fire sprinkler system is installed.
(AMC 18.5.3.060 M) A fire sprinkler system will be installed in this home.
7.When required by the fire code official, fire apparatus roads shall be signe FIRE
8.The land use code considers flag drives and fire work areas to be deemed Fire Apparatus Access
Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. (AMC 18.5.3.060 I) The
OFC requires that fire apparatus roads be approved
Therefore, these requirements found in the land use code should be at the approval of the fire
code official. In addition, the OFC provides the fire code official with the authority to modify any of the
1750 Delta Waters Road, Suite 102, PMB 405, Medford, OR 97504 (541) 941.2681
24
329 Granite Street - Page of
conditions related to fire apparatus access when fire sprinklers are installed in a building. This home
will have fire sprinklers installed.
Water Supply Requirements
Based on AMC amendments, a fire hydrant is required to be located within 600 feet of a structure when fire
sprinklers are installed. (AMC 15.28.070 G)
2021 ICC Wildland Urban Interface Model Code (WUIC)
Access requirements of the OFC, Ashland amendments and the AMC either meet or exceed the
requirements of the WUIC.
Water supply requirements of the OFC, Ashland amendments and the AMC either meet or exceed the
requirements of the WUIC.
Fuels reduction requirements of the OFC, Ashland amendments and the AMC either meet or exceed
the requirements of the WUIC.
Access Grade Requirements Comparison
After researching the access grade requirements in several communities, the following grades were found
to be codified:
Jackson County 15 % maximum finished grade; up to 18% for 100three
sections
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Beaverton, Tigard and surrounding areas) 15% maximum grade
Development of This Lot Improves Community Safety
One of the questions that sometimes arises is whether the development of a lot improves or reduces
community safety. Having spent my entire career in both the wildland and structural fire service, I
appreciate this question and have had many opportunities to hear it discussed and negotiated and to see
what happens in a fire.
The development of this lot provides added safety to this neighborhood. Through the development of this
lot, fuels reduction will be required to be implemented and maintained. This will help to improve the
potential to slow a fire if it moves through and reduce the potential for a crowning fire to occur. This also
provides a greater potential for firefighters to make an impact on a wildfire and reduce the potential
negative impacts of fire to the neighborhood.
The grade of the driveway, the fire apparatus access, meets the requirements of the OFC and AMC. While
lesser grades may be more desirable for the fire department, there is also a need to balance priorities and
requirements including riparian areas, cut and fill and erosion mitigation. The allowances of up to 18%
grade for flag drives was approved by the fire department and helps to balance these sometimes
competing priorities.
The home will have fire sprinklers installed inside. While this will not stop a wildfire from moving through the
area, they will likely reduce the potential for a home fire to spread to the forest and adjacent homes.
1750 Delta Waters Road, Suite 102, PMB 405, Medford, OR 97504 (541) 941.2681
34
329 Granite Street - Page of
76= Kvermxi Wxviix
Site Plan Diagram
Level 3 Floor Plan Level 2 Floor Plan Level 1 Floor Plan
76= Kvermxi Wxviix
Floor Plans
West Elevation
East Elevation
South Elevation
North Elevation
76= Kvermxi Wxviix
Elevations
Longitudinal Section Through Entry, Facing East
Longitudinal Section Through Garage, Facing West
Transverse Section Through Bedrooms, Facing South
Transverse Section Through Stairs, Facing South
76= Kvermxi Wxviix
Sections
Zmi{ jvsq Yt xli Lmpp0 Ew Mrhmgexih mr \]ipps{ sr ×Wxviix Zmi{Ø Mqeki
ranit
e
G
329
View Location Key
Street View
76= Kvermxi
Perxivr Lmpp Hvmzi
Gsrxi|xyep Zmi{w
Lantern Hill Drive
/
/
/
/
Rendered View
ranit
e
G
329
View Location Key
Street View
76= Kvermxi
Kvermxi * \[mrfyq
Gsrxi|xyep Zmi{w
Granite & Winburn
/
/
/
/
ranit
e
G
329
View Location Key
Street View
Gsrxi|xyep Zmi{w
\[iwx Jsvo Wxviix
76= Kvermxi
West Fork Street
/
/
/
/
ranit
e
G
329
View Location Key
Street ViewStreet View
Kpirr Zmi{ Hvmzi
76= Kvermxi
Gsrxi|xyep Zmi{w
Glenview Drive
/
/
/
/
WHEN PRINTED ON 24X36
COVER
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO. 2031
1"=30'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
15 FT WIDE WITH MINIMUM 12' PAVED
200 FT OF LENGTH @ 18.0% SLOPE200 FT OF LENGTH @ 15.0% SLOPE
150 FT OF LENGTH @ 15.0% SLOPE100 FT OF LENGTH @ 17.0% SLOPE
50 FT OF LENGTH @ 15.0% SLOPE
64 FT OF LENGTH @ 12.0% SLOPE
50 FT OF LENGTH @ 8.0% SLOPE
TOTAL LENGTH: 814 FT
0'15'30'60'90'
*(WR) includes Type-1 variance
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
LANDSCAPE AND SITE
ARCHITECTURAL
CIVIL
WHEN PRINTED ON 24X36
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 0.0
JOB NO. 2031
1"=20'-0"
04.20.21
SCALE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
IC
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
*(WR) includes Type-1 variance
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 1.0
JOB NO. 2031
1"=40'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:L 1.1
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO. 2031
1"=40'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
L 1.2A
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO. 2031
1"=60'
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'15'30'60'90'
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0"
Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During
Land Development.
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
L 1.2B
NOT TO SCALE
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO. 2031
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 1.3
JOB NO. 2031
1"=40'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 1.4
JOB NO. 2031
1"=40'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
L 1.5A
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO. 2031
1"=40'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
L 1.5B
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO. 2031
1"=40'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 1.6
JOB NO. 2031
1"=60'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
ASHLAND, OR 97520
IC
329 Granite Street
0'15'30'60'90'
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0"
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 1.9
JOB NO. 2031
VARIES
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 2.0
JOB NO. 2031
1"=40'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:L 2.1
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO. 2031
1"=60'
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 2.2
JOB NO. 2031
1"=40'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
ASHLAND, OR 97520
IC
329 Granite Street
0'10'20'40'60'
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 2.3
JOB NO. 2031
1"=60'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'15'30'60'90'
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0"
WHEN PRINTED ON 11X17
REVISION DATE
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWN BY:
L 2.4
JOB NO. 2031
1"=60'-0"
SCALE
1.3.22
IC/KK
ASHLAND, OR 97520
329 Granite Street
0'15'30'60'90'
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0"
Memo to File re: PA-T2-2022-00036
Additional information to clarify findings and slight alterations based on a minor plan change.
The changes reduced number of significant trees to be removed and decreased lot coverage
variance slightly in the WR zone by ~.002 percent versus what is within the application findings.
Driveway Grade:
The driveway is greater than 50-feet in length. According to definitions, a Drive, Flag: Is a
driveway that serves a single lot or parcel and is greater than 50-feet in length… the driveway is
substantially greater than 50-feet in length and serves a single parcel. The flag driveway
standards found in AMC 18.5.3.060.F. state that the 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.
Due to the steep slopes of the property, the location of the riparian preservation area, variance
to this code section is requested to allow for two segments of the driveway to exceed 15 percent.
One segment has a 18 percent slope and a segment that is 200 feet, and another segment that is
100-feet in length and is 17 percent (see Civil Engineering Sheets C).
Lot Coverage Variance:
At the time of the proposal, it was unclear where the zoning overlay is in proximity to the property
area. The property has a substantial area that is WR zoned which has a very limited coverage area
and a larger area that is RR-5 zoned which allows for more coverage area. This is due to a
boundary error in the survey maps of this area and that the county mapping of lot area and the
actual surveyed boundaries the zoning maps of the city are correlated to the county mapping
data and not survey by survey. This issue adds to the unique and unusual circumstances and also
minimizes the impact. The area of the property that is zoned RR-.5 increases with the mapping
discrepancies and the WR zone area decreases thus minimizing the variance.
Based on the slope analysis, the WR portion of the property has more of the developable area
and the RR-5 portion is steeper. The requested overage in the WR zone is offset by the lot
coverage in the RR-5 portion of the property being less than allowed. The two areas are
The WR portion of the property has 11.5 percent coverage proposed. This is an increase of 4.5
percent. The RR-.5 portion of the property has 13.7 percent lot coverage. This is 6.3 percent
below the allowed maximum coverage. The balance of the two properties is compliant with the
total coverage of the properties and as a whole, the property has less lot coverage than allowed.
The request variance is the minimum necessary and balanced against the numerous challenges
to developing this property, the request is minor.
Modified Findings Addressing Tree Removal Criteria:
5.
Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on
a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is
located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may
approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions.
There are 18 significant trees proposed for removal vs. 19 stated in the findings. There are 16
deciduous trees, Madroneand Oak that are noted by the project arborist as poor condition,
one Oak is listed a good condition. There is one larger stature Pine tree that is proposed for
removal that is in good healthand a fir tree to be removed. Of the 330 trees on the site
removal is 18 is insignificantto the overall tree densities, species and improves tree health.
Of the trees proposed for removal, six are within the riparian area. The riparianarea does
encompass the entire driveway access of the property. Proposed mitigation trees are all of
riparian species replacing the upland trees proposed for removal.
In comparison to the 2004 approval of a driveway without a building designated there were
24 significant trees proposed for removal compared to the 18 proposed for removal in the
present application. Additionally, the trees proposed for removal at that time were noted as
moderate and good health.
This proposal removes fewer large stature trees and removes fewer trees that are in
good/moderate health with more poor health Madrones proposed for removal. The
application retains more of the siteslargerstature pine, oak, and fir trees.
a.The tree is located within the building envelope.
Finding:
Some of thetrees that are proposed for removal is because they are within the building
envelope/footprint.
b.The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area.
Finding:
Most of the trees proposed for removal are within the proposed driveway or within the areas
of the cuts of the structural retaining walls adjacent to the driveway.
c.The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement.
Finding:
Not applicable.
d.The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes
an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in subsection
18.3.10.090.D.2.
Finding:
There are smaller diameter trees shown for removal, some have disease or are dead. These
trees are typically 8-inch DBH and smaller Madrones, Pine and Fir.
e.The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to
the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional.
Finding:
As noted above, the trees proposed for removal are largely within the driveway area or
directly adjacent to the driveway wherestructuralretaining walls are required.
f.T
he tree is identified for removal as part of an approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan
per subsection 18.3.10.100.A, or with the exception of significant trees the tree removal is
recommended by the Fire Code Official, and approved by the Staff Advisor, as part of a
comprehensive fuels reduction strategy to implement a General Fuel Modification Area
consistent with subsection 18.3.10.100.B.
Finding:
Of the 330 trees on site that are greater than six inches DBH. There are 155 total trees
proposed for removal that range between 6-inches to 24-inches DBH. There are 45 trees
proposed for removal as part of a Fire Prevention and Control Plan and 15 trees that are
greater than 12-inches DBH and considered significant trees requiring the tree removal
permit review.
The trees proposed for removal will not have a significant impact on the erosion, soil stability
or flow of waters.
6.Tree Replacement.
Finding:
Of the 18 significant trees proposed for removal, there are 16 deciduous trees proposed to
be removed and oneconifer trees. The proposed mitigation trees are all within the Water
Resource Protection Zone enhancement area and there are no replacement conifers
proposed.
Clarification of the demonstrable difficulties.
H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
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.
Finding:
The demonstrable difficulty in complying with standards that apply to parcels over 25 percent
when the parcel is more than 65 percent creates numerous constraints to siting of a driveway, a
homesite and providing adequate access and wildfire safety.
When the parcel was created there was a 10-foot buffer zone for Twin Creek. The present
ordinance requires a 30-foot buffer from the centerline of the stream centerline. The riparian
preservation zone occupies nearly 50 percent of the north half of the property. This pushes the
development areas to the southern portion of the property. The property is steeper in along the
east property line thus the proposed development area is in the southwest portion of the
property which is also primarily the ridgeline area.
Respectfully,
Amy Gunter
Rogue Planning & Development
MODERATEMODERATE
CONDITION
GOODGOOD
POORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOOR
12" MULTI15" MULTI
15" SPLIT
DBH
14"21"24"15"12"12"13"13"22"24"12"12"17"12"15"12"12"12"12"15"12"
MADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONE
SPECIES
PINEPINE
OAKOAKOAK
FIRFIR
42628217218220221222321400402409413414416417418422423426428430429
TREE #
B
2004123456789101112131415161718192021222324
SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE REMOVED FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES
RiparianRiparianRiparianRiparianRiparianRiparian
MODERATE
CONDITION
GOODGOODGOOD
POORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOORPOOR
12" MULTI12" MULTI12" MULTI
12" SPLIT14" SPLIT
DBH
14"21"24"12"12"12"12"12"12"22"18"12"20"
MADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONEMADRONE
SPECIES
PINEPINE
OAK
FIR
105661627580929596
45112123127128136284
TREE #
B
2022101112131415161718
123456789
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
PA-T2-2021-00031
375 & 475
East Nevada Street
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street
APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000),
David Young (owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300)
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Urban
Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences
inthe location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and
that the original maps scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks
to make clear that the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Urban Growth Boundary as
Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200
& 1300). PLEASE NOTE: The also requires review and
approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County
Board of Commissioners. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve & North
Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300.
ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 7:00 PM
th
OVER
Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described
planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter
Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and
RVTV Prime.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers 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.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by
email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541)
488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us.
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant,
and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpacketsseven days prior to the
hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating
circumstances, 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.
Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the
February 8 PC Hearing Testimony
February 7, 2022. If the applicant wishes to
provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the
February 8PC Hearing Testimony
February 8, 2022. Written testimony
received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included
in the meeting minutes.
Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic
meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, February 7, 2022. In order to
providetestimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email
February8SpeakerRequest
2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if
youwillbe participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the
telephone number you will use if participating by telephone.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the -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). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Senior
Planner Derek Severson, the staff planner assigned to this application, at 541-488-5305 or e-mail:
derek.severson@ashland.or.us
Minor Map Amendments or Corrections (Type II). \[AMC 18.5.9.020.A.\]
The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments
or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or
more of the following.
1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to
the changed circumstances.
3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action.
4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of
the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G.
5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will
e 25 percent of the
proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G.
6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers
to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of
not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions.
ASHLANDPLANNINGDIVISION
STAFFREPORT
February8,2022
PLANNINGACTION:
PA-T2-2021-00031
APPLICANT:
RoguePlanning&DevelopmentServices,LLC
OWNERS:
Peter&LauraSchultz(375E.NevadaSt.)
DavidYoung(475E.NevadaSt)
SUBJECTPROPERTIES:
375EastNevadaStreet
(391EMap04A,TaxLot1000)
475EastNevadaStreet
(391EMap04A,TaxLot1100-1200-1300)
ORDINANCEREFERENCES:
See
https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse
AMC18.1
IntroductionandGeneralProvisions
AMC18.1.2
Title,Purpose&General
Administration
AMC18.2
ZoningRegulations
AMC18.2.1.030
DeterminationofZoningBoundaries
AMC18.5
ApplicationReviewProceduresand
ApprovalCriteria
AMC18.5.1
GeneralReviewProcedures
AMC18.5.9
ComprehensivePlan,Zoning,and
LandUseOrdinanceAmendments
AMC18.5.9.020.A
MinorMapAmendmentsor
Corrections
AMC18.6
Definitions
AshlandComprehensivePlan(see
http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Comprehensive_Plan-
updated_6.2019.pdf)
UGBA
1982UrbanGrowthBoundaryAgreement()
betweenCityofAshland&JacksonCounty(See
https://jacksoncountyor.org/ds/DesktopModules/Bring2
mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?Command=Core_D
ownload&EntryId=34685&language=en-
US&PortalId=16&TabId=1460)
120-DAYTIMELINE:
NotApplicable(seeORS227.188)
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 1 of 13
REQUEST:
TheapplicationisarequestforaMinorComprehensivePlanMapCorrectionto
clarifytheCityofurbangrowthboundaryforfourpropertieslocatedat375&475
EastNevadaStreet.Theapplicationassertsthattherearedifferencesinthelocation
betweentheofficialpapermapsandthecurrentGISmapsinusebyboththeCountyandthe
City,andthattheoriginalscalesweresuchthatthelinewidthcouldsignificantlyalterthe
boundarylocation.Theapplicationaskstomakeclearthattheportionsofthefourpropertiesin
(1.37
questionarewithintheCityofurbangrowthboundaryasResidentialReserve
acresofTaxLot1000)(2.08acresofTaxLots1100,
andNorthMountainNeighborhoodPlan
1200&1300)
asillustratedontheattachedStaffExhibitS-1.
-judicial procedure may be used for minor map
amendments or corrections. However, in this instance the1982Ashland/JacksonCountyUrban
GrowthBoundaryrequiresreviewandapprovalofapplicationstocorrecterrorsin
theComprehensivePlanMapbyboththeAshlandCityCouncilandJacksonCountyBoardof
Commissioners.Assuch,theapplicationisbeingtreatedasaprocedurebecauseit
requiresaCouncildecisionandadoptionofmapcorrectionsbyordinance.(IftheCityCouncil
approvesthecurrentrequest,theapplicantwouldthenneedtomakeasimilarapplicationto
JacksonCountyforconsiderationbytheBoardofCommissionersbeforeeitherbodywouldadopt
anordinancecorrectingtheboundaryline.)
I.Discussion
The application requests approval of a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment in the form
of a map correction to clarify the urban growth boundary. The application materials assert that the
record of the exact location of the urban growth boundary line has been inconsistent, and recording
a plat to further urbanize the subject properties within the city limits would leave Jackson County
RR-5 zoned remnant properties outside the Urban Grown Boundary with less than the minimum
required lot area under their county zoning.
Goal14ofstatewidelanduse-planninggoalsdealswithIntheOregon
AdministrativeRules(OAR),OAR660-004-0040discussestheofGoal14toRural
ResidentialThesubjectpropertiesherearewithinthecountiesRuralResidentialzone
(RR-5).Withregardtorurallandsplannedforresidentialusessuchasthepropertieshere,Goal
14prohibitstheurbanuseoftheserurallands,andtothatendpreventsthecreationofnewlotsor
parcelssmallerthantheminimumsize(whichisgenerallynosmallerthantwoacresinGoal14,
andspecificallyfiveacreshereundertheRR-5zoning)withoutanexceptiontoGoal14.
Recordingaplattopartitionordividetheportionsofthepropertieswithinthecitylimitswould
createnewdiscreteparcelsoutoftheremnantpiecesofthepropertiesthatlieoutsidethecitylimits
andurbangrowthboundary,triggeringtheexception.Thiswouldbeacostlyactionwiththe
Countyandinapre-applicationwithCountystaff,theyhaveindicatedtotheapplicantthat
approvalofsuchanexceptionappearsextremelyunlikely.
There are portions of four tax lots includedin the request for clarification of the urban growth
(39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100,
boundary. These properties arelocated at 475 East Nevada Street
1200&1300)(39 1E 04A Tax Lot1000).
and at 375 East Nevada Street In 2017, the Planning
Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential
Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay Zoning;a Zone Change from Jackson County
Rural Residential, ½-acre minimum (RR-5) to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) Zoning
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 2 of 13
Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 20-lot/23-unit Performance
Standards Options at 475 East
Nevada Street.
The application materials explain
applicant met with Jackson County staff regarding the split-zoning of the property and the need,
with subdivision of the property, to create discrete lots for the remnant properties outside the urban
growth boundary. The application suggests that at this point, it became apparent that there were
implementing their development regulations.
Theapplicationconcludes that the request is that the portions of tax lots 1100, 1200 & 1300
totaling 2.08 acres at 475 East Nevada Street, and the approximately 1.37acre area of tax lot 1000
at 375 East Nevada Street which are depicted on the current city maps as being outside the urban
growth boundary instead be included within the City of Ashlandurban growth boundary as it
was drawn intheofficial 1989map, explaining that while the present Geographical Information
System (GIS) mapsshow the properties divided by the City of Ashland urban growth boundary
roughly mid-way between the north and south property lineswith the urban growth boundary
following the city limits boundary, the 1989 map is of such a scale thatthe pen stroke is larger
than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property per the GIS maps.The application
materials emphasize that the issue at hand must be addressed before further action can be taken to
complete the approval and development of the Katherine Mae Subdivision.
II.Analysis
Theexpansionoftheurbangrowthboundaryotherthanthroughthecorrectionofamappingerror
wouldtriggeraminoramendmenttotheGreaterBearCreekValleyRegionalPlan.Whenthe
RegionalPlanwascompletedin2012,theCityofAshlandwastheonlyparticipatingcityinthe
regionthatchosenottoidentifyurbanreserveareasforthefutureexpansionofitsurbangrowth
boundary.Ashlandinsteadcommittedtoaccommodatingadoublingoftheregionalpopulation
overthenext50-60yearsthroughmoreefficientlandusewithintheexistingcitylimitsandurban
growthboundary.Shouldthecitynowseektoexpanditsurbangrowthboundarybynotmore
than50acres,itwouldrequireaminoramendmenttotheRegionalPlanbeprocessedbyJackson
CountywiththeCityofAshlandastheapplicant.
IndiscussingtheapplicationwithDepartmentofLandConservationandDevelopment(DLCD)
staff,theyhaveconfirmedthatiftheapplicationistrulyaclarificationoftheUGBboundary
basedontheinterpretationofhistoricdocuments,itdoesnotconstituteaUGBamendmentand
canbetreatedasacorrection
Therequesthereistodeterminewhetherthecurrentmapsreflecttheoriginallyintendedplacement
oftheurbangrowthboundary,oriftheurbangrowthboundarywasincorrectlyplacedinthe
transitionfromtheoriginalpapermapstothecurrentlyadoptedelectronicmapsandthusmerits
correction.
MinorMapAmendmentsorCorrections
AsdetailedinAMC18.5.9.020.A,minormapamendmentsorcorrectionmaybeapprovedif
incompliancewiththeComprehensivePlanandtheapplicationdemonstratesthatoneormoreof
thefollowing:
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 3 of 13
1.Thechangeimplementsapublicneed,otherthantheprovisionofaffordable
housing,supportedbytheComprehensivePlan.
2.Asubstantialchangeincircumstanceshasoccurredsincetheexistingzoningor
Plandesignationwasproposed,necessitatingtheneedtoadjusttothechanged
circumstances.
3.Circumstancesrelatingtothegeneralpublicwelfareexistthatrequiresuchan
action.
4.Proposedincreasesinresidentialzoningdensityresultingfromachangefrom
onezoningdistricttoanotherzoningdistrict,willprovide25percentofthe
proposedbasedensityasaffordablehousingconsistentwiththeapproval
standardssetforthinsubsection18.5.8.050.G.
5.Increasesinresidentialzoningdensityoffourunitsorgreateroncommercial,
employment,orindustrialzonedlands(i.e.,ResidentialOverlay),willnot
negativelyimpactthecommercialandindustriallandsupplyasrequiredin
theComprehensivePlan,andwillprovide25percentoftheproposedbase
densityasaffordablehousingconsistentwiththeapprovalstandardssetforthin
subsection18.5.8.050.G.
6.Thetotalnumberofaffordableunitsdescribedin18.5.9.020.A,subsections4or
5,above,shallbedeterminedbyroundingdownfractionalanswerstothenearest
wholeunit.Adeedrestriction,orsimilarlegalinstrument,shallbeusedto
guaranteecompliancewithaffordablecriteriaforaperiodofnotlessthan60
years.18.5.9.020.A,subsections4and5donotapplytoCouncilinitiatedactions.
DeterminationofZoningBoundaries
AMC18.2.1.030alsospeakstotheofZoningandprovidesthat:
Unless otherwise specified, zoning boundaries are lot lines, the centerlines of streets, and railroad
right-of-way, or such lines extended. Where due to the scale, lack of scale, lack of detail or illegibility
of the Zoning Map, or due to any other reason, there is uncertainty, contradiction or conflict as to the
intended location of a zoning boundary, the Staff Advisor or, upon referral, the Planning Commission
or City Council, shall determine the boundary as follows:
A.wźŭŷƷƭΏƚŅΏǞğǤ͵ Boundaries that approximately follow the centerlines of a street,
highway, alley, bridge, railroad, or other right-of-way shall be construed to follow
such centerlines. Whenever any public right-of-way is lawfully vacated, the lands
formerly within the vacated right-of-way shall automatically be subject to the
same zoning designation that is applicable to lands abutting the vacated areas. In
cases where the right-of-way formerly served as a zoning boundary, the vacated
lands within the former right-of-way shall be allocated proportionately to the
abutting zones.
B.tğƩĭĻƌͲ ƌƚƷͲ ƷƩğĭƷ͵ Where a zoning boundary splits a lot into two zones and the
minimum width or depth of a divided area is 20 feet or less, the entire lot shall be
placed in the zone that accounts for the greater area of the lot by the adjustment
of the zoning boundary. Where a zoning boundary splits a lot into two zones and
the minimum width and depth of both divided areas is greater than 20 feet, the
lot shall have split zoning with lot area designated proportionately to each zone.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 4 of 13
C.WǒƩźƭķźĭƷźƚƓ ĬƚǒƓķğƩǤ͵ Boundaries indicated as approximately following a City or
County boundary, or the Urban Growth Boundary, shall be construed as following
said boundary.
D.bğƷǒƩğƌ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ͵ Boundaries indicated as approximately following the
centerlines of a river or stream, a topographic contour, or similar feature not
corresponding to any feature listed in section 18.2.1.030, above, shall be
construed as following such feature.
Ashland/JacksonCountyUrbanGrowthBoundaryAgreement(UGBA)
InadditiontotheAshlandMunicipalCode(AMC),thereisanCountyUrban
GrowthBoundaryAgreementwhichwasadoptedin1982.TheUGBAsetsforththe
mutuallyadoptedurbanizationprogrambetweentheCityandJackson(and)establishes
anUrbanGrowthBoundary,anAreaofFutureUrbanization,AreasofMutualPlanningConcern,
jointpoliciesgoverningtheurbanizationoflands,andrevisionandadministrativeprocedures.
TheUGBArequiresreviewandapprovalofapplicationstocorrecterrorsintheComprehensive
PlanMapbyboththeAshlandCityCouncilandJacksonCountyBoardofCommissionersas
follows:
/ƚƩƩĻĭƷźƚƓ ƚŅ 9ƩƩƚƩƭ͵ If the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners become
aware of an error in either the map or the text of the mutually adopted urbanization
program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to occur to correct the
error, after mutual agreement is reached. Such a correction shall be in the form of a
public hearing and an ordinance, conducted separately or jointly by both bodies, which
may take effect on an emergency basis. Public hearings before the Planning
Commissions shall not be required where an amendment is intended specifically to
correct an error.
Generally, an error is a cartographic mistake or text misprint, omission or duplication.
Such errors are not derived from new data or suggested errors made in interpretations
of the attitudes of the public, the governing bodies or data; the latter error types are
considered under the amendment provisions cited herein.
IndiscussionswithJacksonCountystaff,theyhaveconfirmedthatifthecitydeterminesanerror
hasbeenmadeandthemaprequirescorrection,theywouldforwardtheissuetotheBoardof
Commissionersforadecision,asdetailedinthe1982UrbanGrowthBoundaryAgreement.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 5 of 13
The Tarp The original working map used in developing the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan
maps is often referred to as as it was created from a large canvas tarp. This is not an officially
adopted map, but has been used as a reference tool for staff when boundary questions arise. Staff
estimates that The Tarp dates to the early- to mid- as it was in use as a reference tool when the
current Community Development Director was hired in the late A photo of The Tarp as it illustrates
the subject properties is shown below - with a red rectangle added by staff to identify the subject
properties:
Figure 1
While The Tarp does not illustrate a clear distinction between the city limits and urban growth boundary
here, it does clearly show the subject tax lots and does not identify Comprehensive Plan map designations
for the portions north of the city limits line shown, suggesting that even from this early date, boundary
lines were located so that they left the portions of the subject properties in question here outside the
boundaries. Based on the scale, the boundary line is shown at just over 150 feet from the north
boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 6 of 13
1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) Map
The city and county adopted an Urban Growth Boundary Agreement in 1982 which included an
Urban Growth Boundary Map as A. A portion of that map depicting the subject
properties is copied below, with a red rectangle added by staff in the general area of the subject
properties:
Figure 2 1982 UGBA Map
This UGBA exhibit map does not identify individual tax lots and is generally lacking in clear detail.
The scale on the map is difficult to read and imprecise, but the city limits and urban growth
boundary lines appear to scale to less than 200 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada
Street right-of-way. (The current GIS map has this boundary at between 153 feet and 167 feet
north of the right-of-way. If adjusted as the applicant requests, the boundary would be between
250 and 329 feet north of the Nevada Street right-of-way.)
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 7 of 13
1982 Comprehensive Plan Map from Urbanization Element (Adopted by Ord. 2227)
A new Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan map were adopted in 1982 as Ordinance
#2227. The Urbanization element of the Comprehensive Plan included a map illustrating the
urban growth boundary; the portion of this map depicting the subject properties is copied below,
with the general location of the properties, the urban growth boundary and city limits identified
in red:
Figure 3 1982 Urbanization Element Map
This 1982 Comprehensive Plan map does not identify individual tax lots and is generally lacking in
clear detail. The scale on the map is difficult to read and imprecise, and identifying the exact
intended location of the urban growth boundary is complicated by the fact that the width of the
boundary line itself scales to slightly more than 200 feet and obscures the north boundary of the
Nevada Street right-of-way and the city limits line beneath it. The associated Urbanization
element of the Comprehensive Plan does include a narrative description of the urban growth
boundary based on lettered points called out on the map noting, The urban growth boundary
returns to the city limits at point Q. The only other departure of the urban growth boundary (line
from the city limits line) is from point R to point S, where it includes the sewage treatment
plant and a portion of the Bear Creek Greenway. The subject properties are between point S and
the starting point A, suggesting that in this vicinity the city limits line and urban growth boundary
line were one and the same in 1982.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 8 of 13
1982 Adopted Zoning Map
Staff have obtained a digital copy of the original zoning map sent to the state for
acknowledgement in 1982. The portion relevant to the subject properties is illustrated below,
with the general location of the properties in a red rectangle:
Figure 4 Officially-Adopted Zoning Map (1982)
The city limits and urban growth boundary line are one and the same here. Individual tax lots are
not identified, however the boundary line scales as approximately 120 feet north of the north
boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 9 of 13
1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement Map
The application materials provided include a map described as being part of a 1989 Urban Growth
Boundary Agreement. The relevant portion of this map, with the notes in the red box,
is included below.
Figure 5 UGBA Map (1989). hŅŅźĭźğƌͪ
Staff cannot locate an adopted 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, and as such cannot
confirm that this is an official map. There was an Urban Growth Boundary Agreement update
process initiated in 2001, but it never came to fruition, and both the city and the county are still
currently working under the adopted 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement discussed above,
and are unaware of an adopted 1989 update. While the map provided includes individual tax lots,
the tax lot lines are unclear with regard to the subject properties here, and the map provided does
not include a scale.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 10 of 13
2008 Officially Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map
In 2008, the city adopted new zoning and associated overlay maps in digital format with
Ordinance #2951. These are the current official maps. A portion of the official Comprehensive
Plan map depicting the subject properties is shown below, with a red rectangle added by staff
around the subject properties.
Figure 6 Current Officially-Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map (2008)
In the current officially-adopted maps, the city limits and urban growth boundary lines are one
and the same in this vicinity, similar to the way they were depicted on and described
in the narrative description in the 1982 Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This
currently adopted official GIS map has the boundary lines at between 153 feet and 167 feet north
of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way, which splits the subject properties
between city and county, leaving remnant portions outside the city and urban growth boundary
under the county jurisdiction.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 11 of 13
III.Procedural
AMC 18.5.9.020.A Minor Map Amendments or Corrections
The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may
be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or
more of the following.
1.The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing,
supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
2.A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan
designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed
circumstances.
3.Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action.
4.Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one
zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base
density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.
5.Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial,
employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively
Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as
affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.
6.The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5,
above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole
unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee
compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A,
subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions.
Ashland/JacksonUrbanGrowthBoundaryAgreement(UGBA)
Section 11.D of the 1982 UGBA between Ashland & Jackson County addresses of
as follows:
Correction of Errors. If the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners become aware of an error
in either the map or the text of the mutually adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an
immediate amendment to occur to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. Such a correction
shall be in the form of a public hearing and an ordinance, conducted separately or jointly by both bodies,
which may take effect on an emergency basis. Public hearings before the Planning Commissions shall not
be required where an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error.
Generally, an error is a cartographic mistake or text misprint, omission or duplication. Such errors are not
derived from new data or suggested errors made in interpretations of the attitudes of the public, the governing
bodies or data; the latter error types are considered under the amendment provisions cited herein.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 12 of 13
IV.ConclusionsandRecommendations
Staffbelievesthattheboundarylineswouldhavebeenmuchbetterplacedtofollowpropertylines,
andstaffisequallyfrustratedthatthesizeofresultingremnantpropertiesinthecountyprevents
furtherurbanizationoftheseproperties,howeverinreviewingtheapplicationmaterialsand
associatedmaps,staffhavebeenunabletoidentifyanyclearerrorintheurbangrowthboundary
currentplacementthatsuggestsitwasplaceddifferentlythanwasoriginallyintendedand
needstobecorrected.Whileeachofthevariousmapsposesomechallengesintermsofclarity,
scaleandtheidentificationofindividualtaxlotlinesrelativetotheboundarylinelocations,allof
themaregenerallyconsistentindepictingastraighturbangrowthboundarylineinthesame
locationasthecitylimitslineaswasdescribedintheComprehensivePlannarrativein1982
whentheboundarywasestablished-ratherthanhavingtheboundaryfollowpropertylines.As
such,staffareunabletosaythatacorrectionismeritedhere.
Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds)
Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 13 of 13
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
375 East Nevada Street
475 East Nevada Street
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Received 3.15.2021
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Subject Property
Property Address: 475 EAST NEVADA STREET
Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300
Property Owner: Young Family Trust
348 South Modoc Street
Medford, OR 97504
Property Address: 375 EAST NEVADA STREET
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 04A Tax Lot: 1000
Property Owner:Peter and Laura Schultz
375 E Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Surveyor:Hoffbuhr & Associates
880 Golf View Drive; Suite 201
Medford, OR 97540
Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
Amy Gunter
1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457
Medford, OR 97501
Comprehensive
Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Reserve
Zoning: SPLIT: City of Ashland RR-.5
Jackson County Rural Residential (RR-5)
Adjacent Zones:NM-R-1.5; NM-MF; Rural Residential (RR-.5); Jackson
County RR-5; and Jackson County Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 1 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
Request:
The application requests approval for a City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Jackson
County Rural Residential to Ashland Residential Reserve/North Mountain Neighborhood Plan.
It can be found that the record of the exact location of the Urban Growth Boundary line has been
inconsistentand leavesJackson County RR-5 zoned remnant parcels of landthat necessitate Goal 14
exceptions due to the limited lot area of the legal parcels of record of the areas north of and outside of
the city of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary.
There are portions of fourparcels of record included in the request for clarification of theUrban
Growth Boundary. The properties are 475 East Nevada Street (39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300)
and 375 East Nevada Street (39 1E 04A Tax Lot: 1000).
In 2017, the Katherine Mae Subdivision obtained Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family
Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay Zoning, a Zone Change from Jackson
County Rural Residential, ½ Acre minimum (RR-.5-P), to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) Zoning
Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approval for a Performance Standards Subdivision to allow
for the future development of a phased subdivision in 2017.
At the time of the subdivision request, it was believedthat the property was divided by the city of
Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that is shown on the 2008 adopted maps from the city of Ashland
as roughly half-way between the north and south property lines. Following discussions and meetings
with Jackson County regarding the “split zoning” of the property and the need to create separate and
discrete parcels of recordnorth of the UGB that areseparate from the property on the south side of the
UGB.
Following inquiries at the County, it became apparent that there is question to the adopted maps on file
with the city of Ashland and dated July 2008 and the maps that Jackson County uses in the
implementation of their development regulations. In the research of this issue, the ability to readily
manipulate the boundary lines presently when mapped by the Geographic Information Services (GIS)
mapping software versus the lines drawn on the adopted Comprehensive Plan Mapsbecame more
apparent.
The property owner and the project team find that there is an important issue at hand that must be
addressed before further action can be taken concerning the Final Planning of the adjacent Katherine
Mae Subdivision.
According to the present Geographical Information Systems (GIS) drawn maps, the properties are
divided by the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) roughly mid-way between the north and
south property lines. The UGB is shown following the city limits boundary. The official map is dated 1989
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 2 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
and is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject
property per the GIS maps.
The request is for the 2.08-acre portions of 1100, 1200 & portions of 1300, and an approximately 1.37-
acrearea of 375 East Nevada Street that is on the north side of the GIS drawn line to be included into
the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary as drawn upon the 1989 official maps.
Property Descriptions:
The properties proposed for proposal consists of four properties, tax lots #1000, 1100, 1200, and 1300.
The properties are on the north side of East Nevada Street west of the intersection of East Nevada Street,
and an unimproved, remnant portion of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way.
The subject properties are Comprehensive Plan designated as
Single-Family Residential Reserve. Tax lots 1100, 1200, and
1300 have been rezoned to North Mountain Multi-Family
Residential.
Tax lot 1000 is a city of Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson County RR-5
zoning.
The properties are all within the Performance Standards Overlay.
North of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the City limits
boundaries, the properties are Jackson County Rural Residential, Five Acre Minimum (RR-5).
Tax lot #1200 is occupied by a 1,785-square foot single-story, single-family residence that was
constructed in 1954. There is a detached garage on the county side of the property. Another outbuilding
exists behind the residence. Tax lots #1100 and 1300 are vacant.
The properties to the east and west are also split by UGB and split zoned by Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson
County RR-5. The property to the east is too small and constrained to be considered.
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 3 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
The property to the west at 375 East Nevada (39S 1E is included in the proposalat the recommendation
of the City of Ashland. This property is occupied by a single-family residence and associated outbuildings.
The property to the north at 1059 North Mountain Avenue (39S 1E 04A; 201) is zoned Jackson County
RR-5. This lot is occupied by a vacant mobile home. This lot is zoned Rural Residential, five-acre minimum,
and is more than five acres in area.
T
he property at 1260 Oak Street (39S 1E 04A; 300) is to the north of 375 East Nevada Street. This property
is zoned Exclusive Farm Use and is 21.97 acres.
Across the North Mountain Avenue overpass to the southeast, the properties are zoned Healthcare (HC).
These properties are part of the Skylark Assisted Living Facility and Mountain Meadows Retirement
community.
The properties to the south, across East Nevada Street, are within the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan Overlay. There are North Mountain Single Family (NM-R-1-5); North Mountain Commercial (NM-C);
and North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) zones within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan
Overlay.
The four parcels included in the request are bound by East NevadaStreet along the south property lines.
According to the street classification in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), East Nevada Street is an
Avenue or Major Collector. East Nevada would be considered a two-lane avenue. Avenues have a right-
of-way width of between 59 – 86 feet. There is generally, 60-feet of ROW along the frontage of the
properties. In the area of steep, rocky slopes between the subject property and the driving surface of
East Nevada Street, there is more than 120-feet of ROW. East Nevada Street is not improved to Avenue
Standards. Due to the topographical constraints within the ROW, East Nevada Street is narrow,
constrained by the development to the south, and by the rock outcropping on the north side. East
Nevada has a varying width of improvements.
A
long the frontage of the properties, East Nevada Street is improved with pavement, curb, and gutter.
There is a 22-foot paved travel lane, curb, and gutter. On the south side of East Nevada Street, there are
various street improvements within the varying width ROW. Across from 475 East Nevada, there is curb
and gutter, no sidewalk. This property is “under-developed”, and street improvements will be required
with future site development. West of the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street, the
street improvements include 22- feet of driving surface, with curb, gutter, varying width parkrow, and
sidewalk. These improvements continue down the hill to the intersection of Camelot and Kestrel
Parkway. None of East Nevada Street has dedicated bicycle lanes.
T
he right-of-way that forms the east boundary of the property is North Mountain Avenue because it falls
within a remnant of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way, but the actual surface street North
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 4 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
Mountain is above the property and transitions from surface street to bridge over the Interstate. The
“street” is not improved more than the narrow gravel driveway that serves the five-acre parcel to the
north of the subject properties. This new street is approved to be named Franklin Street.
Details of the Request:
The request is to acknowledge the adopted 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Map and that the north side
of the pen stroke (the north property lines of the properties at 375 E Nevada Street and 475 E Nevada
Street) is the location of the UGB.
Discussions regarding the property boundaries of the Katherine Mae subdivision began in earnest with
Jackson County and the City of Ashland in early 2016. At the time of the Subdivision application to the
City, Jackson County had indicated that the Urban Growth Boundary Line was a defacto property line
due tojurisdictional overlap.
The County found they could not approve a partition of the “non-conforming” parcels that are north of
the presently mapped GIS database for a few reasons.
1)All of the subject parcels that are divided by the GIS version of the UGB are zonedJackson County
Rural Residential (RR-5) lots. Torevise thelegal description of the properties north of the UGB, a partition
application in Jackson County is required. The resulting lot areas of the separate parcels to the north of
the UGB are substantially less than the minimum lot size in the RR-5 zone.
2)Rural Residential lands that are outside of the UGB and are less than the minimum lot area of two
acres, requires a Goal 14 Exception. The property is unique fromwhat appears to be assumed with
Goal 14 review, that future division of existing parcels to create lots that are less than the minimum lot
area cannot be approved. This property consists ofthree,discreet parcels that exist with the UGB
creating the boundary division.
Al
lowing the land to be urbanizeable to the standards of the City of Ashland prevents the application of
Goal 14 to the rural residential land.
Oregon Administrative Rules: 660-004-0040
Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas
(1) The purpose of this rule is to specify how Goal 14 “Urbanization” applies to rural lands
in acknowledged exception areas planned for residential uses.
(2) For purposes of this rule, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals,
and OAR 660-004-0005 shall apply. Also, the following definitions shall apply:
(f) “Rural residential areas” means lands that are not within an urban growth
boundary, that are planned and zoned primarily for residential uses, and for which
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 5 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
an exception to Goal 3 “Agricultural Lands”, Goal 4 “Forest Lands”, or both has
been taken.
5)The rural residential areas described in subsection (2)(f) of this rule are “rural lands”.
Division and development of such lands are subject to Goal 14, which prohibits urban use
of rural lands.
(6
)
(a) A rural residential zone in effect on October 4, 2000, shall be deemed to comply
with Goal 14 if that zone requires any new lot or parcel to have an area of at least
two acres, except as required by section (8) of this rule.
(b) A rural residential zone does not comply with Goal 14 if that zone allows the
creation of any new lots or parcels smaller than two acres. For such a zone, a local
government must either amend the zone's minimum lot and parcel size provisions
to require a minimum of at least two acres or take an exception to Goal 14. Until
a local government amends its land-use regulations to comply with this subsection,
any new lot or parcel created in such a zone must have an area of at least two
acres.
(7) After October 4, 2000, a local government's requirements for the minimum lot or parcel
sizes in rural residential areas shall not be amended to allow a smaller minimum for any
individual lot or parcel without taking an exception to Goal 14 pursuant to OAR chapter
660, division 14, and applicable requirements of this division.
(8)(a) The creation of any new lot or parcel smaller than two acres in a rural residential
area shall be considered an urban use. Such a lot or parcel may be created only if an
exception to Goal 14 is taken. This subsection shall not be construed to imply that the
creation of new lots or parcels two acres or larger always complies with Goal 14. The
question of whether the creation of such lots or parcels complies with Goal 14 depends
upon compliance with all provisions of this rule.
To facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to retain
consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted maps and plans, recognizing the adopted
UGB “line” extends to the north property boundaryof the parcels in questioneliminatesthe dividingline
that created Goal 14 exception land outside of the UGB.
T
he benefits of acknowledging the north property line as the UGB provides many benefits to the City of
Ashland. The additional 3.45 acres has the potential base density of 41 dwelling units. The property is
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 6 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
directly adjacent to the city limits and the areahas had various mapping that leads one to believe the
boundary is not officially mapped and clarification is sought.
This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they
would be developed at a later date, following the annexation of the area in question.
On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are
provided. For clarity, the criteria are infont and the applicant’s responses are in
Times New Roman
Calibri font.
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 7 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
Findings of Fact
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change:
18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure
Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows:
A. Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections.
Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following.
Applicant’s Finding:
According to the 1982-024 Jackson County and Ashland Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, Minor
Boundary Line Agreements, are minor adjustments to the UGB that are defined as focusing on individual
properties and not having a significant impact beyond the immediate area of the change. In 2004, the
Jackson County Land Development Ordinance adopted a process for correcting minor mapping errors.
The Jackson County criteria regarding minor amendments are similar to the Ashland Municipal Code
requirements and an application for amendment is necessary at the county levelfollowing the decision
at the City of Ashland.
1.The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported
by the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Finding:
The change implements the public need for the additional land area adjacent to the existing
developable land area that allows for diverse housing stock.
The requested change is consistent with the State of Oregon Legislative goals and is in line with a
recent effort by the Department of Land Conservation and Development pilot program for minor
UGB amendments though a state-assisted process, Ashland was not part of the project area but
qualified if it had sought the program.
The proposal implements Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization, to provide for an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban
employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for
livable communities. If undersized, substantially smaller than minimum five-acre portions of RR-
5 zoned land remaining, it is an inefficient use of level, buildable, connected land that is best suited
for urbanization instead of remnant rural residential lands.
The addition of connected, owned in common properties to the Urban Growth Boundary furthers
Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.10. Which seeks to ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide
housing opportunities for the total cross-section ofAshland’s population, consistent with
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 8 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
preserving the character and appearance of the city. The development standards of the North
Mountain Overlay (anticipated with future rezoning and development of these portions of the
properties) ensure the character and appearance of the city are maintained. The North Mountain
Overlay allows for single-family attached and detached, clustered, and multi-family style
development patterns. This is consistent with the character and appearance of the city.
The proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.11 as it relates to growth form, City
policy should encourage the development of vacant available lots within the urban area while
providing sufficient new land to avoid an undue increase in land prices. This shall be accomplished
with specific annexation policies.Allowing portions of existing parcels that are in the same
immediate vicinity, served by the same public streets, adjacent to the same freeway, restricted to
the same solar orientation standards, lot coverage, stormwater drainage, parking, open space
requirements, heights, orientation, scale, etc. as the properties to the east as part of the Mountain
Meadows development including Skylark Place, and the other developments within the North
Mountain Neighborhood to the south, and southwest is an inefficient use of land that allows for
additional housing area to meet Ashland’s housing needs.
The proposal furthers the Energy, Air, and Water Conservation goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan Goals, Chapter 11. The proposal adds land that is physically connected to the
city limits. The land has access to city electricity, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, and water.
The site has excellent solar orientation and solar electric generating systems would be possible.
1059 N Mountain Avenue (39 1E 04; 200) though outside of the city limits and UGB has city water
service.
The city shall strive, in every appropriate way, toreduce energy consumption within the
community.The Council's goals include leveraging the city resources to provide additional lands
for housing development. Allowing for a small area of land to be included within the UGB to allow
for future urbanization demonstrates the city's efforts to increase the developable area to
increase housing stock.
The proposal furthers the goals outlined in Chapter 12, Urbanization which seeks to maintain a
compact urban form and include an adequate supply of vacant land to not hinder natural market
forces and ensure orderly and sequential development of the land in the city limits.
2.A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation
was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances.
Applicant’s Finding:
The state regulations imposing Goal 14 exceptions when a parcel area of Rural Residential land is
smaller than the minimum lot area was adopted in 2000.
The city limits were adopted pre-1900. The urban growth boundary was adopted in the early
1980s, the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1997. The subject properties were
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 9 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
part of the large area of underdeveloped land on the north side of Bear Creek, accessedonly by a
gravel-surfaced, North Mountain Avenue. Between 1997 and today, major public and private
expenditures were made to bring paved streets, sewer, and water to this area.
The current property owners understand the great value in working with the City and providing
additional developable land consistent with the adjacent property zones and development
patterns allowing for furthering the Comprehensive Plan concerning urbanization.
The various Comprehensive Plan Maps lead one to speculate that there is a discrepancy between
the paper maps adopted in the 1970s and 1980s and the 2000s changes to the state laws
regarding Goal 14 exceptions for RR-5 zoned land that is smaller than minimum lot areas, is a
substantial change that necessitates the requested modified Urban Growth Boundary to create
remnant parcels that cannot be developed or are area deficient and requires an exception to state
regulations of rural residential lands.
3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action.
Applicant’s Finding:
N/A
4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district
to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable
housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G.
Applicant’s Finding:
The area of the 475 E Nevada Street parcels is 2.08 acres. Of this, approximately 11,300 square
feet (.259 acres) of tax lot 1200 has slopes of 35 percent or greater. The remaining 1.82 acres has
a base density of 21.85 dwelling units. When these properties are annexed, five (21.85 X .25 =
5.46) affordable housing units would be provided when the portion of the property in question is
annexed and developed.
The area of 375 E Nevada Street that is north of the city limits line is 2.34 acres. Of these 2.34
acres, 5,200 square feet is the floodway of Bear Creek and 25,860 square feet is FEMA's 100-year,
special flood hazard area. The area of the property outside of the floodplain and floodway is 1.63
acres and the base density is 19.66. When this property is annexed, four (1.63 X .25 = 4.91)
affordable housing units would be provided when the portion of the property in question is
annexed and developed.
Adequate numbers of affordable housing units that comply with the standards of subsection
ALUO 18.5.8.050.G. will be provided when the subject properties are annexed into the city.
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 10 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
5.Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or
industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial
and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan and will provide 25 percent of
the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards outlined in
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.
Applicant’s Finding:
N/A
6.The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall
be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction,
or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a
period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated
actions.
Applicant’s Finding:
The total number of affordable housing units varies depending upon the future uses and the level
of AMI restriction. The future development of the subject properties will demonstrate compliance
at the time with the required number of affordable housing units as required per ALUO
18.5.9.202.A.
The property owner and the applicant find that to facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the
adopted Comprehensive Plan and to retain consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted
maps and plans, recognizing the adopted UGB “line” extends to the north property boundary of the
parcels in question eliminates the dividing line that created Goal 14 exception land outside of the UGB.
The benefits of acknowledging the north property line as the UGB provides many benefits to the City of
Ashland. The additional 3.45 acres has the potential base density of 41 dwelling units. The property is
directly adjacent to the city limits and the area has had various mapping that leads one to believe the
boundary is not officially mapped and clarification is sought.
This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they
would be developed at a later date, following the annexation of the area in question.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Gunter
Attachments:
Snip of Ashland Acres SubdivisionPlat Map (1923)
Draft UGB map (1” = 4000’ dated 2/22/1979)
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 11 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
Draft UGB map (1” = 2000’ dated 2/22/1979)
Adopted UGB map (dated 11/2/1982)
UGB Map from 1989 UGB Agreement (dated 7/1989)
Official Map of City of Ashland (dated 2004)
Jackson County Development Services map of the property
(dated 12/14/2018 and 1/23/2019)
Jackson County Pre-application Conference Summary
Letter from Attorney Brett Hall (dated June 7, 2020)
Findings of Fact
March 5, 2021
Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map
Page 12 of 12
Received 3.15.2021
Received 3.15.2021
Received 3.15.2021
Bqqspyjnbufmpdbujpopg
tvckfduqspqfsuz)2:8:*
Received 3.15.2021
Received 3.15.2021
MpdbujpopgTvckfduQspqfsuz/
Pvutjeffehf)opsuitjef*pg
mjoftipxojtmpdbujpopgopsui
qspqfsuzmjof/)2:9:*
Received 3.15.2021
Received 3.15.2021
Received 3.15.2021
Received 3.15.2021
Development
Services
Charles Bennett
Planner III
10 South Oakdale Avenue, Room
100
Medford, OR 97501-2902
Phone: (541)774-6115
Fax: (541)774-6791
bennetch@jacksoncounty.org
Pre-Application Conference
Summary Report
File: 439-18-00012-PRE(PA-NON)
\[This is nota Land Use Decision and is for Informational Purposes Only.\]
1)GENERAL INFORMATION:
LegalDescription
: Township 39, Range 1E, Section 04A, Tax Lot1100&1200 & 1300
Location:
The property is located at 475 East NevadaStreet.
Property Owner:
Young Family Trust
Meeting Time:
A meeting was held on Friday,December 21, 2018, at 2:00 PM.
Agent:
Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC
Staff:
Charles Bennett & Craig Anderson
Proposal:
The property owner wants clarification on location of the Urban Growth
Boundary.
Acreage:
2.08 acres
Zoning:
The property ispartially within the City of Ashland and partially in the County
zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5).
2)DISCUSSION:
Staff and the applicants discussed the location of the Urban Growth Boundary based
on review of current mapping (GIS) and historic maps. GIS maps are not official maps. The official map
is dated 1989 and is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB
on the subject property. Most of the historic maps indicate that the UGB is a straight line that
corresponds with Ashland City limits. The UGB also appears to be consistently approximately 1320’
from the Section line to the northin this area. A previous version of the GIS mapping had the UGB
following the subject taxlotsjust north of the Ashland City limits which appears to be the least consistent
with official historic maps. GIS mapping currently indicates the UGB to be a straight line along the city
limits.
Jackson County File #439-18-00012-PREPage 1
Received 3.15.2021
3) REQUIRED APPLICATIONS:
The Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement and
the 2004 Land Development Ordinance (LDO) provide for the process to correct minor mapping errors.
The applicants first need to obtain Ashland City Council acknowledgement of the error and then file for
a Type IV Zone Map Amendment ($7,078)addressing the map error procedureand criteria whichthen
would go to the Board of Commissioners for final review(skipping the Planning Commission per
procedure). The applicants couldalsoapply for a Type II or Type III partition along the UGB line(Section
10.2.3). The applicants may also apply for a Type IV application for a Goal 14 Exception to expand the
UGB to includethe entire subject tax lots, but approval appears extremely unlikely.
4)CONCLUSION / DISCLAIMER:
Notice:
There was no public notification of this PRE-APPLICATION proposal (This is not an
application. It is a pre-application.)
Information:
This report is for informational purposes onlyand represents the Planning Departments
best understanding of the applicant’s request at this time. No guarantees have been given in this pre-
application as to whether or not the application will be approved or denied. The burden of proof rests
solely with the applicant to provide the necessary information to approve such a request based upon
the applicable standards and criteria of the County Land Development Ordinance.
If you have any questions feel free to give me a call at 774-6115.
Sincerely,
Charles Bennett
Planner III
Date: 1/25/19
Attachments: Copies of Maps, UGBA, Section 5.1.4 of LDO
Jackson County File #439-18-00012-PREPage 2
Received 3.15.2021
June 7, 2020
Planning Division, City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear City of Ashland:
I represent the Young Family Trust. The Young Family Trust owns Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300
in Township 39 Range 1E, Section 04A; the street address is 475 East Nevada Street. There is
currently an approved Planning Action 2017-02129 in place for development of this property
into a 20 lot, 23-unit subdivision, with associated proposed Comprehensive Plan designation
changes. The planned development is consistent with the goals of the City of Ashland and
Oregon land use law, and will benefit the City of Ashland. It will provide additional housing for
the City’s residents, and will include low income housing. The purpose of this letter is to request
a formal interpretation pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code § 18.1.5.020 et seq., of the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) line along these three tax lots.
There is currently a question as to the location of the UGB along the north side of these three tax
lots. The City has previously taken the position that the UGB follows the City limits boundary,
which is approximately 100 feet south of the northern most property line of each lot. This
position appears to be based on a visual interpretation of a thick marker line on the latest
Comprehensive Plan map, and a GIS map adopted by City Council. It is our understanding that
this position is also inconsistent with previous maps and agreements as jointly adopted and
agreed to by Jackson County and the City, such as the Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth
Boundary Agreement dated May 20, 1982. See Attachment 1, Ashland/Jackson County Urban
Growth Boundary Agreement. See also, Attachment 2, Excerpt from 1982 Comprehensive Plan;
Chapter 12: Urbanization (Comprehensive Plan Map Pg. 9), adopted November 2, 1982, ORD
2227. It is also inconsistent with the Jackson County Planning Office’s interpretation in
December 2018. See Attachment 3, Pre-application Conference Request, Katherine Mae
Subdivision at p. 2. See also Attachment 4, 1982 map received from Jackson County. And
finally, maps based on GIS mapping and not physical surveys, such as the one adopted by the
City of Ashland, are necessarily imprecise by virtue of the imprecise method in which they are
created, as opposed to maps from actual surveys which can and did serve as the legal basis of the
1982 agreement between Jackson County and Ashland.For these reasons the exact location of
the UGB with respect to these properties is unclear.
In addition, the City’s position would result in that land being subject to County jurisdiction, and
we understand a Goal 14 Exception is not feasible. (ORS-660-004-040 Application of Goal 14 to
Rural Residential Areas). If, on the other hand, that land is within the UGB then the property
could be annexed, brought into the development and provide additional housing for the City of
Ashland and its citizens.
1
Received 3.15.2021
Accordingly, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code § 18.1.5.020 et seq., we request a formal
interpretation of the exact location of the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary
\[Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12; Urbanization: Adopted November 2, 1982. ORD 2227\] along
Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 in Township 39 Range 1E, Section 04A, and to determine whether
the adopted line from the aforementioned map has a width of along the adopted city limits
boundary, which would be the south edge of mapped line, or along the north property line
boundary of the subject property, which would be the north edge of mapped line.
Again, we believe the map from with the 1982 boundary agreement with the County is the
accurate map and is not based on GIS interpretation which is generally not a precise form of
map. Please contact me if you have any questions. In the meantime, we look forward to the
City’s formal interpretation.
Best regards,
Brent H. Hall
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement.
Attachment 2: 1982 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 12: Urbanization (Comprehensive Plan Map p.
9). Adopted November 2, 1982. ORD 2227
Attachment 3: Pre-Application Conference Request, Katherine Mae Subdivision
Attachment 4: 1982 Map received from Jackson County
cc: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development Services
Client
2
Received 3.15.2021