HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-13 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, Qive your name and complete address for the record.
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
OCTOBER 13, 2009
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. September 15, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
2. September 29,2009 Planning Commission Minutes
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTIONS: 2009-01051
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 514 Granite Street
APPLICANT: Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to reconstruct an existing non-conforming
structure for the property located at 514 Granite Street. A Conditional Use Permit is required because
the existing lot coverage (impervious surfaces of the existing home, driveway and sidewalks) exceed
the seven percent coverage allowed in the zoning district. With the proposal, overall lot coverage on
the site is to be reduced by 23 square feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland
Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 17 AA; TAX LOT: 1105
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Comments on Proposed Council Rules Ordinance and Uniform Policies and Operating
Procedures Ordinance.
B. Croman Mill District Plan.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF
ASHLAND
r.,
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 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1 ).
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Adam Hanks, Project Manager
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Tom Dimitre
Council liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted Jackson County has begun the process to update the Economic Element
of their Comprehensive Plan. Additional information is available on their website at Mr. Molnar also
announced the City Council will be reviewing two ordinances that deal with proposed changes to the Council Rules and
adopting uniform policies and operating procedures for City commissions, committees, and boards. He stated the two
ordinances were emailed to the commissioners earlier this week and the Council will hold first reading on October 6,2009.
Commissioner Marsh requested this topic be tentatively placed on an upcoming agenda and requested staff prepare a brief
summary of the proposed changes.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. July 28, 2009 Study Session Minutes
2. August 11, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
3. August 25, 2009 Study Session Minutes
Commissioner Blake requested the following correction be made to the July 28, 2009 Study Session minutes: On Page 1
under Announcements, it should read: "One neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for October and the Master Plan
Update will likely return to the Planning Commission later this fall."
Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris mls to approve the Consent Agenda with the noted correction. Voice Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00784
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 615 Washington Street
APPLICANT: Ron Rezek
DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural
Residential) to City of Ashland zoning E-1 (Employment) for an approximately t02-acre parcel located at 615
Washington Street. The application is for a warehouse facility to serve the adjacent Modern Fan business at
709 Washington Street. The application includes a request for the Site Review Approval for the 17,650 square
foot warehouse building and associated parking areas and landscape installation. A Tree Removal Permit is
requested to remove twelve trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height or greater.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; PROPOSED ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E
14AC; TAX LOT: 200.
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Morris asked to be excused from the hearing. He stated he recently completed a project for the Applicant and
also has ties with the business across the street. Morris left the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Commissioners Blake, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin and Rinaldi all declared site visits; no ex parte contact was
reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report on the planning application. He explained this application is for
an annexation and zone change which would bring the property into the City as E-1 employment zoning. The application also
includes site review approval to construct a 17,650 sq. ft. warehouse building, and a tree removal permit to remove 10 of the
site's 17 trees. Mr. Severson stated the property is located near the intersection of Washington St. and Jefferson Ave and
noted the wetland area on the adjacent property to the north.
Mr. Severson reviewed the site plan and explained the proposed structure would be built to the north of the existing Modern
Fan building. He noted landscaping will be installed between the building and the street, parking will be located along the
north property line, and there will be a pass-through between the two buildings. In terms of parking, staff has observed that the
existing parking lot, which has 18 spaces, is typically empty and are proposing the light manufacturing parking requirement be
applied instead of the warehouse parking demand. This would allow for a reduction in the parking requirement from 18 spaces
to 6 or 8 spaces. Mr. Severson clarified the Applicant's proposal does not involve adding additional employees.
Mr. Severson reviewed the Tree Removal and Protection Plan and commented on the wetland area to the north. He explained
this wetland is fed by rainwater runoff from the drainage ditch adjacent to Washington Street. Staff has contacted the
Department of State Lands regarding this and while they have indicated the piping of this drainage would not adversely affect
the wetland, they want assurance that stormwater runoff flows are maintained in the ditch at the current levels in order to
continue feeding the wetland. Mr. Severson noted staff has drafted a condition to address this.
Mr. Severson commented on the proposed street improvements and explained annexation requirements call for a half-street
improvement to be provided. He stated Washington Street is classified as a commercial collector and a minimum right-of-way
of 63 ft. is necessary to accommodate the improvements. As such, staff is recommending the Applicant dedicate an additional
9 ft. of right-of-way in order to accommodate these improvements. Mr. Severson suggested the Commission consider
amending Condition 5b to allow the Applicant to bond for the required improvements along their frontage. He stated rather
than having the Applicant install the improvements at this time, this would allow the City to comprehensively plan the street
improvements along that frontage and the bond would support their installation at a later date once the issues on the street
have been dealt with.
Mr. Severson noted questions were raised about possibly retaining the multi-trunked Elm tree that fronts Washington Street,
and stated the Commission could consider modifying Condition 6a to require this tree be retained and incorporated into the
finallandscapelirrigation plan. He added if these condition modifications are made, Conditions 6b and 6d would also need to
be updated to keep the language consistent. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff is recommending
approval of the application with the conditions outlined.
Questions of Staff
In response to whether it is necessary to have a sidewalk on the side of the street nearest the drop-off, Mr. Severson clarified
City standards call for this, but there may be a better way to address this in a comprehensive manner.
Commissioner Dotterrer commented on Condition 4 and suggested staff provide a clear definition for "office space." He also
commented on Condition 6a and questioned why a certified arborist is required to prepare the Tree Preservation and
Protection Plan. Mr. Severson explained the Applicant did not submit a typical tree inventory that identified the types of trees
on the site and their condition, which is what staff uses to evaluate whether the condition of the tree merits its removal or
whether the species or condition of the tree is sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. Because of this, both
staff and the Tree Commission are recommending verification from an arborist that the trees can accommodate the proposed
development and no additional measures are necessary to ensure their survival. Dotterrer asked about obtaining the solar
setback calculation in Condition 6i and received clarification that it would not be difficult for the Applicant to demonstrate
compliance with Solar Setback B. Mr. Severson also clarified Condition 6j was included at the request of the Building Division
to ensure that any excavation to construct the new building would not undermine the footings for Modern Fan 1.
Commissioner Rinaldi suggested the arborist inspect the multi-trunk Elm tree at the front of the property and determine
whether it is suitable for saving. He also suggested Condition 5b be clear that the entire parkrow needs to be irrigated, not just
the trees.
Commissioner Mindlin asked whether the multi-trunk Elm tree and cattails would be in the public right-of-way and requested
they include a condition requiring this area to be maintained.
Commissioner Blake asked about the Stormwater Drainage Plan listed in Condition 5a and asked how these are normally
accomplished for commercial developments. Mr. Severson stated this is typically accomplished through engineering and
noted the City's Engineering Division has asked for revised plans that will ensure post development peak flows do not exceed
pre-development levels.
Applicant's Presentation
Bruce Abeloe/827 Alder Creek Drive, Medford/Applicant's Representative/Addressed the question about stormwater
drainage and stated it is standard to meet pre-development flows with control structures. He stated the water will be stored in
a pipe before it flows into the wetland and this enables them to have control over it. He acknowledged his submittal regarding
this was preliminary and stated it will be taken care of when the engineering building plans for the project are finalized. Mr.
Abeloe thanked staff for reducing the initial parking requirement, but stated he would like to hear from the City's Fire Marshall
on whether this would affect fire truck access. He added given this change he would also like to move the trash area closer.
Mr. Abeloe stated the Elm at the front of the property will need to be evaluated by an arborist and they will have the Oak tree
in the back evaluated as well. He clarified the Landscape Plan will be modified to include the drainage swell and the Elm tree,
and suggested some type of pathway be installed from the existing sidewalk to the front door and driveway. Mr. Abeloe
concluded his presentation and voiced his support for staff's recommendations.
Public Testimonv
None.
Advice from Leaal Counsel & Staff
Mr. Severson noted he had spoken with Fire Marshall Margueritte Hickman about the fire truck access and she had indicated
if the paved area is extended to the landscape bay, that would be sufficient for fire access as long as the landscaping did not
impair a firefighter's ability to get through that area on foot. Mr. Severson stated the Fire Marshall's other concern was
ensuring access via an easement to the rear parking lot of Modern Fan 1.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Bruce AbeloeNoice his support for the conditions and modifications recommended by staff.
Commissioner Marsh closed the record and the hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Dotterrer commented on the parking requirement and stated he is not convinced this project requires any
additional parking. He suggested the Commission consider removing the parking requirement and include a condition that
preserves the area in case it is needed at a future time. Staff clarified this type of amendment would require a variance
approval.
Commissioner Marsh noted this application requires two motions: 1) approval of the site design proposal, and 2) a
recommendation to the City Council on the annexation.
Commissioner Dawkins/Blake m/s to approve the site design proposal for Planning Action #2009-00784 with the
modifications discussed. DISCUSSION: Mr. Severson recited the modifications that would be included in this approval:
1) Condition 5b - Modify to require the Applicant to post a cash deposit or similar approved security instrument for the
outlined half-street improvements; for installation of the street improvements to be deferred in order to comprehensively
plan the street system; and for the Applicant to provided a right-of-way dedication for the full 63 ft. necessary to improve
the street to City standards.
2) Condition 6a - Modify to require the Applicant to provide a Tree Preservation and Protection Plan for all existing trees;
and for the multi-trunk Elm tree nearest the Washington St. right-or-way be retained and incorporated into the final
landscapelirrigation plan (subject to the arborist's recommendation).
3) Condition 6b - Modify the number of trees approved for removal if the Elm tree can be retained.
4) Condition 6d - Remove the language "to Washington Street and for future improvements". This would still require the
Applicant to agree to participate in any future LID for improvements to the Ashland Street intersection.
5) Condition 6e - Modify to require the Landscapellrrigation Plan to address the landscaping for the frontage, ditch or swale,
and walkway to the street.
6) Condition 6a - Modify to require the arborist report address the Siberian Elm along Washington St.
7) Condition 5b - Modify to read "irrigated parkrows" instead of "irrigated street trees."
Mr. Severson clarified the fire access issues are addressed in Condition 6k, and he would add the relocation of the trash
enclosure to the Landscape Plan on Condition 6a. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Rinaldi, Blake, Dawkins, Marsh,
Dotterrer, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to recommend annexation of this project to the City Council. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Dotterrer, Mindlin, Dawkins, Blake, Miller, Rinaldi and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Tolling and Extension Ordinance Initiation
Commissioner Rinaldi asked to be excused due to a financial interest in one of the projects that could be affected by these
proposals.
Commissioner Marsh clarified this item was referred to the Commission by the City Council and asked that they not discuss
the ordinance language, but deal with this on a conceptual level.
Mr. Molnar noted this issue went before the City Council in July and he provided a brief overview of the two proposals. He
stated the questions before the Planning Commission are: 1) Should the Municipal Code include a provision that tolls or
suspends approval timetables if a project is appealed to LUBA or Circuit Court, and 2) Due to the recent economic downtown,
should the City enact legislation that extends the expiration date of land use applications that were approved between January
1,2006 and July 1,2009.
In regards to the first item, Mr. Molnar stated the Municipal Code is silent on this subject and when these situations occur staff
has encouraged applicants to apply for an extension to protect themselves. He clarified site review approvals for commercial
buildings are good for 12 months, and applicants can receive one 18 month extension. Approvals will expire if project
construction has not commenced within that 30 month timeframe. Mr. Molnar noted LUBA appeals can take several months or
more and an applicant's approval could expire even if they prevail in court.
Mr. Molnar explained the second item stems from comments made by applicants about their inability to obtain financing for
approved projects due to the economic downturn. He stated a list of projects that are in jeopardy of losing their approval status
was handed out at the beginning of the meeting and noted the City of Portland recently adopted a similar ordinance. Mr.
Molnar stated Project Manager Adam Hanks and City Attorney Richard Appicello are here tonight and can provide further
information on these two proposals.
Mr. Hanks came forward and commented on the proposal to extend the approval period due to the recent economic downturn.
He asked the Commission to discuss whether the changes in the economy and the commercial credit problems warrant a one-
time, date specific extension, or whether applicants should have to resubmit their projects and go back through the approval
process.
City Attorney Richard Appicello stated the reason for development timetables is to not contract away the police power and
stated timetables are necessary to ensure projects are built to the current laws. In regards to the proposal to extend timetables
for projects that are appealed, he noted that he frequently gets calls about this and because our Municipal Code does not
specifically speak to this, there is no such provision. He stated this is more of a policy question and stated if they agree with
the tolling proposal, they may want to consider beefing up the timetable itself so it is more specific as to what is due when.
Comment was made questioning what would happen if the conditions for approval change. Mr. Hanks stated this is up for
discussion, but currently in order to qualify for the 18 month extension, conditions must be the same or the applicant has to
show how they meet the new conditions.
Comment was made that the extension for projects that are appealed to LUBA seems to be mixed in with the economic
development timetable. Staff clarified this was not the intent and these are two separate proposals.
Philip Lang/758 B Street/Questioned where the timetable extension proposal originated from and stated it has nothing to do
with LUBA appeals or residential construction. He stated this is a very bad idea and should be dropped from consideration.
Mr. Lang stated in a year's time, major changes can happen to City standards and this proposal would allow developers to
build to the lower and older standards. He stated if older plans are reviewed for compliance with new standards, where are the
fees and staff to support such a review, and how does the public know this will be done. Mr. Lang stated this proposal
constitutes an indirect giveaway to developers and it is bad public policy.
Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated when the Commission approves a planning action they assume the building will be
built and this is not always the case. He stated developers often try to maximize what they can place on their land and soon
after Planning Commission approval is received you will see a "For Sale" sign on the property. Mr. Swales acknowledged the
economic downtown, but stated developers do not want an extension so they can build the project, they want an extension so
they can continue to market it. He recommended these projects come back through the approval process in order to ensure
the proposal is in line with the current economic environment, which may mean downsizing if necessary. In regards to the
tolling proposal, Mr. Swales questioned how many planning actions this has really affected and questioned the need for this
provision.
Commissioner Marsh requested the Commission separate their deliberations for the two proposals.
T ollina Ordinance (LUBAlCircuit Court Appeals)
The commissioners shared their opinions on the proposed tolling ordinance. Dawkins stated this proposal seems fair to him
and it is common sense for those projects to receive an extension. Dotterrer was surprised that the City of Ashland did not
already have a provision for this and stated he views this as a clean-up measure. Morris agreed that the City should adopt a
provision. Blake stated this is a fairness issue and if it is out of the applicant's hands, there should be some adjustments to the
timeframe. Miller stated it should be made clear to all parties what the situation is. Marsh agreed with the other comments that
have been made and stated there is a fairness issue here and we should not punish the person who has been subject to the
appeal. She stated there seems to be consensus from the Commission that the Council should proceed with this ordinance.
Extension due to Economic Downturn
The commissioners shared their opinions on the proposed extension ordinance. Dawkins stated does not know why they are
considering this and does not see a problem with current process. Miller stated applicants should have their ducks in a row
before they get started and feels the current 30 month timeframe is adequate. Dotterrer disagreed and feels the Council
should take this up. He stated this proposal identifies applications approved during a specific timeframe and does not agree
with the argument that this is a subsidy. He stated applicants would still be subject to any changes in the code and voiced his
support for the Council looking into this proposal. Morris stated he could go either way, but feels this proposal has some merit
and should be looked at further. Blake stated there are compelling arguments on both sides and given the difficultly to obtain
construction financing there may be cause for the City to provide some relief at this time. Mindlin stated she is on the fence.
On one side she is sympathetic to applicants who are ready to build, but can't receive financing; but on the other side if an
applicant has to go back through the City's approval process, the bulk of the work (and expense for preparing the documents)
has already been completed and it is just a matter of checking the application for consistency with the current code
requirements. Marsh stated she believes these are extraordinary times and feels the Council should look into some sort of
additional extension process. She added a lot of details would need to be worked out, but feels this proposal is worth
pursuing.
Mr. Molnar stated he would report back to the City Council on these two proposals, provide the Commission's comments, and
get direction. Marsh clarified the Commission's support for the tolling ordinance and stated while there is not overwhelming
support to pursue the extension ordinance, the Commission would be willing to look at this further if directed to do so by the
Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Debbie Miller
Council liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced Southern Oregon University will be holding a meeting on the
Campus Master Plan Update on Monday, October 5th. He stated if the commissioners want to attend, they are free to do so
but will have to declare it as ex parte contact. He added commissioners can go and observe, but they should not participate in
the actual discussions.
Commissioner Marsh noted the Commission's annual retreat is scheduled for Saturday, October 31. It was noted that
Commissioner Dotterrer will not be able to attend. Marsh stated they are still developing the agenda and encouraged the
commissioners to submit their ideas to staff.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA #2009-00784,615 Washington Street.
Commissioners Morris and Dimitre stated they would abstain from voting since they did not participate in the hearing. No ex
parte contact was declared by any of the commissioners.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake m/s to approve the Findings for PA #2009-00784. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Blake, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Mindlin and Rinaldi, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Croman Mill District Plan.
Commissioner Marsh provided a brief summary of Croman process thus far. She stated two years ago the City was awarded a
state grant for the Croman Mill site and engaged with consultants Crandall & Arambula to develop the draft plan. The scope of
work for the project included several goals, including: 1) to involve owners, residents, government, and others interested in the
area in the process of developing a master plan, 2) to develop an identity and vision for the area, and 3) to maximize
opportunities for business development and employment consistent with the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). Marsh
noted the public meetings that occurred during the plan development process and stated in February, 2008 the final draft was
submitted to the City. She noted the final draft included goals that were based on input that had been gathered throughout the
process and included: 1) to provide for a large number of family wage jobs, 2) to allow for light industrial and manufacturing
uses, 3) to create parcels with a flexibility to support local new businesses, business expansions, and large employers, and 4)
to consider a range of housing options. Marsh stated this package went before the Council in February, 2009 and at that point
Council directed staff to begin the process of adopting the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan.
Commissioner Marsh stated tonight's meeting has been reserved for the Commission to put forward issues they feel warrant
more discussion and her hope is for the Commission to get a clear sense of direction on the master plan elements. She stated
as they work through the discussion outline they need to determine whether the Commission as a whole is supportive,
whether they wish to make minor modifications, or whether they will recommend major changes that require City Council
approval.
Mr. Molnar clarified at the end of this meeting, staff will distribute the draft AMC language and draft Site Design & Use
Standards. He noted these two documents touch on some of the items to be discussed tonight and if necessary can be
adjusted based on the outcome of tonight's discussion.
Commissioner Marsh clarified what tonight's deliberations will include and how they will proceed.
Commissioner Dawkins expressed his frustrations and questioned the ramifications of moving forward with the Croman Plan.
He submitted an outline of his questions and concerns to the Commission and stated economic development should occur
within the downtown area. Comment was made that if Dawkins wants to propose major changes to the plan he should make a
motion and let the group vote on it. Mr. Molnar clarified if their interest is to ensure a certain amount of land will develop as
manufacturing, a master plan is the only tool to ensure that occurs. He added right now there is no guarantee on what will
occur on that land and two of the last three developments in that M-1 zone have been for professional offices.
Commissioner Marsh referred to the Discussion Outline that was included in the packet and suggested they begin with the
Land Use issues.
Question: Are the CMD land use designations of "Office Employment" and "Compatible Industrial" appropriately
located?
Commissioners Dotterrer and Rinaldi voiced their support for the proposed layout of uses. Blake quoted sections from the
EOA and noted it says that the Croman site should be retained in an industrial designation. Mr. Molnar clarified the purpose of
the EOA was to create a standardization for communities to look at their long term employment needs and ensure they have a
20-year supply of land within their UGB to accommodate this. He added this document talks about trends and where the
community might have competitive advantages in certain industries, however it is up to the community to decide which
direction they want to go. Mr. Molnar added the EOA and State Goal 9 are not suppose to be prescriptive to the community,
but rather the EOA provides information and allows communities to make their own decision.
Council Liaison Navickas noted that the City Council unanimously approved the draft plan and suggested the Commission
discuss the specifics within the plan and not these big picture items. Marsh agreed, but stated in order for the group to move
forward they need to tackle this question and come to an agreement.
Commissioner Mindlin stated she has a lot of questions about whether this plan meets the goals of the EOA and presented a
summary of her issues. She voiced her disagreement with the assumptions that rezoning from industrial to employment will
create more jobs, that office jobs will be higher paying than industrial jobs, and that the new jobs would be held by Ashland
residents. Mindlin also commented on the job sectors identified in the EOA for potential growth and recommended the City
complete an economic development plan to guide this master plan. Comment was made that most of the uses Mindlin is
recommending are currently located in E-1 zones, and disagreeing that the Croman site needs to be an industrial zone for
these uses to occur.
Commissioner Morris shared his concerns with not having enough employment options available and stated when Ashland
kids leave here and go to college, there is no place for them to work when they return. He stated Ashland needs this sector of
employment and manufacturing jobs will not fill this void. Marsh agreed and voiced her support for office employment. She
stated the EOA was predicated on existing uses and it did not set out a vision for what kind of community we want and what
we want to build. She voiced her support for providing family wage jobs that will allow more families to live in Ashland and
stated she is comfortable with the layout of uses. Dotterrer agreed with Marsh and commented on keeping the plan flexible.
He added there are a lot of industrial opportunities that would be allowed on the Croman site. Dimitre stated he agrees with
the issues mentioned by Mindlin and stated he is concerned with the arrangement of uses and Plexis picking the site they
want. Mindlin restated her position that this plan ignores the EOA and what it says are going to be Ashland's growth sectors.
Morris disagreed and stated this plan would not preclude those activities from happening. Dawkins commented that the strict
design standards would likely discourage these types of uses. Mr. Molnar noted that they will be discussing the design
standards at an upcoming meeting and the Commission can determine how flexible they want them to be.
Commissioner Marsh asked if there are members who are unable to move forward with the layout of uses plan as presented.
She stated if they want to change the land use designation to all industrial this is a major shift and will need to be taken back
to the City Council for approval. Councilor Navickas expressed his disappointment that there are commissioners who seem
unwilling to compromise and stated there are still a lot of opportunities for adjustments. Comment was made that this land
could be purchased today and almost anything could be built there, and then the City would have no choice but to build
around what's there. Suggestion was made for someone to make a motion so they can move forward.
Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to eliminate the employment zone and revert the entire plan to a modified M-1
zone that is meant to have flexibility, include employment uses, and exclude the heavier/dirtier manufacturing uses
to be yet determined. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified if this motion passes the plan will need to go back to the City Council
because this is in direct conflict with what they were instructed to do. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, and
Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Blake, Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Rinaldi, NO. Motion failed 5-3.
Commissioner Blake noted a suggestion made by the Croman Advisory Committee to possibly rezone the two blocks
southwest of the park to industrial land and make the two blocks closest to the residential area office employment land. He
stated this would create the potential for a larger industrial lot and might be a good compromise. Hearing no real support for
this suggestion, Marsh stated the Commission will move forward with the current layout while keeping in mind that they will
stay flexible and adjustments may be made as they move forward with the public hearing process.
Questions: Is the addition of "Mixed" land use designation that requires ground floor employment use while
permitting some upper floor residential appropriately located? Should any limitations for upper story uses be
considered? Is too much or too little area allocated to the "Mixed Use" designation?
Staff briefly reviewed the areas on the Croman site that have been allocated for mixed use. It was clarified the ground floor
would be for an employment use, and the upper floors could be either residential or employment use. Mindlin stated she is
hesitant about designating the area outside the city limits at the south end of the property for mixed use. Marsh stated they
have yet to decide whether this area will be included in the master plan, and asked that Mindlin set aside this concern until
they reach that point in the discussion. Dotterrer voiced his support for the mixed use area along the creek and stated it makes
a lot of sense to allow for this flexibility.
Question: Should the most southerly portion of the CMD Plan area be annexed as part of the CMD Plan adoption
process?
Mr. Molar clarified including this area in the Croman master plan may facilitate changes in this area quicker than they might
like. Mindlin stated this area was not on the table for discussion during the plan development process with Crandall &
Arambula. She recommended this area remain as is and not be included in the master plan. Several commissioners
expressed agreement with Mindlin. Morris stated he supports including the portion that has the central boulevard passing
through it. Marsh questioned the implications of having a city street pass through county land. Mr. Molnar clarified the street
could still be constructed to City standards. He added the applicants are currently looking at grant opportunities to build this
central boulevard and if they receive a grant, the road would likely be built all at once. Several comments were made about
the farm currently located on that piece of property and expressing desire for it to remain. Marsh stated there does not seem
to be support from the Commission to pursue annexation of this area as part of the master plan.
Questions: What type, if any, night-time or evening uses should be allowed? Should land uses that are typically land
are intensive and accommodate a relatively low number of employees per acre, such as lumber yards, sorting yards
and recycling centers, be permitted within the CMD?
Commissioner Marsh stated these issues would be pushed to their next meeting when they will be talking about kinds of uses
and refinements.
Question: How does the CMD Plan protect opportunities for utilizing future rail freight?
Mr. Molnar noted the design standards, which will be addressed at their next meeting, includes a map and language that
speaks to this issue and ensures land is reserved and this option remains viable.
Question: Are the CMD's Plan assumptions related to "parking" appropriate?
Mr. Molnar clarified the plan includes the City's standard parking requirements but also includes the ability for shared and
mixed parking. He stated certain areas like the neighborhood commercial might have reductions in parking beyond the current
parking standards and there is also a placeholder for a parking structure. Marsh asked for the Commission's general direction
on the parking issue. Blake noted the LEED neighborhood program and commented on providing less than ample parking in
hopes of encouraging people to use public and alternative transportation. Mindlin agreed with this and voiced support for
looking at some of the suggestions in the LEED standards. Marsh agreed with the comments made and stated they should do
everything they can to move in this direction.
Questions: How will solar access be provided in the CMD Plan? What types of green building or sustainable
development standards should be incorporated within the adopted plan implementation package?
Mr. Molnar stated staff has been working under the assumption that this project will be subject to the City's solar setback
standards and have also conducted research and held discussions with architects out of Portland that have a lot of experience
in solar orientation. He explained what they have found is in terms of street orientation, there is a big distinction between
residential and commerciallindustrial developments. Mr. Molnar stated for industrial and employment buildings, street
orientation is not so much of a consideration for passive heat gain, but is a major consideration for rooftop solar photovoltaic
systems. He stated architects are often recommending industrial and employment buildings be elongated along an east-west
access in order to limit the length of the west facing fagade. He added the primary issue for these buildings is the energy costs
to keep them cool, and the second major energy cost is lighting. Mr. Molnar explained staff is not looking at relocating the
proposed streets, but rather are looking to protect access to rooftop solar collection systems and enacting standards that
minimize west facing building facades.
Mr. Molnar commented on sustainable standards and listed possible methods that could be used to encourage green building.
He commented on providing incentives for buildings built to LEED standards, or they could consider a "menu" of options and
require developments to perform a certain number that would increase the efficiency of the building. Mr. Molnar added some
communities are exploring fee reductions or an expedited permitting process for projects that meet a green standard. Mr.
Goldman noted the draft plan also outlines several options for incorporating sustainability. Rinaldi suggested certain green
attributes (such as rainwater catchment and solar orientation) be required, and then have a menu of options for applicants to
choose from in order to qualify for incentives.
Commissioner Marsh questioned how green streets fit into this. Mr. Molnar explained the plan will show which streets are
going to be designed as green streets, and clarified they are working with the Public Works Director to develop a green streets
standard. Dawkins expressed concern with taking the cement on the site and grinding it up for road base, and stated he does
not believe this meets the definition of sustainable. Mindlin commented that she is torn between requiring high standards and
offering incentives. She explained she also feels they are doing a disservice with the proposed street orientation and feels
they are making a major mistake by not pursuing an east-west layout. Dotterrer questioned if it is possible in the Site Design &
Use Standards to give applicants more flexibility in terms of setbacks to allow them to orient their building differently. Rinaldi
voiced his support for this suggestion. Mr. Molnar stated if there is consensus from the Commission, staff can look into these
issues further and bring back possible adjustments.
B. Comments on Proposed Council Rules Ordinance and Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures Ordinance.
Postponed to next meeting due to time constraints.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARINGS
rA'
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTIONS: 2009-01051
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 514 Granite Street
APPLICANT: Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to reconstruct an existing non-conforming structure for the property located at
514 Granite Street. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the existing 18.9 percent lot coverage (impervious surfaces of the
existing home, driveway and sidewalks) exceeds the seven percent coverage allowed in the zoning district. With the proposal, overall
lot coverage on the site is to be reduced by 23 square feet to 18.8 percent. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland
Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 17 AA; TAX LOT #: 1105
NOTE: The AsWand Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before
the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an Objection concerning this
application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the
issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the
objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues
relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and
will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and
Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have
the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a
participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
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 the AShland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
G:\comm-devlplanninglNotices MailedI2009\2009-01051.doc
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with
relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
8. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject
lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area
shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless
of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices MailedI2009\2009-0 1 051.doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 13, 2009
PLANNING ACTION:
2009-01051
APPLICANT:
Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
LOCATION:
514 Granite Street
39 IE 17 AA Tax Lot #1105
ZONE DESIGNATION:
W-R
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Woodland Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
October 4,2009
120-DA Y TIME LIMIT:
February 1, 2010
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.14
18.61
18.62
W-R Woodland Residential District
Tree Preservation and Protection
Physical & Environmental
Constraints
Non-Conforming Uses & Structures
Conditional Use Permits
18.68.090
18.1 04
REQUEST: Planning Action #2009-01051 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a
replacement house for an existing non-conforming structure to be demolished at 514 Granite Street.
A Conditional Use Permit is required because the existing lot coverage (impervious surfaces ofthe
existing home, driveway and sidewalks) exceeds the seven percent lot coverage allowed within the
W-R zoning district. With the current proposal, the overall lot coverage on the site is to be reduced
by 23 square feet.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
In April of 2003, a Boundary Line Adjustment between tax lot 1100 and 1105 was
minsteriallyapproved. At the time, there was a finding that while the subject properties were
non-conforming in terms of the lot sizes, the boundary line adjustment was proposed in a
manner that did not change either lot's pre-existing lot size and thus neither became more
non-conforming as a result of the boundary line adjustment.
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 1 of 7
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
Site
The subject property is located at 514 Granite Street, on the west side of Granite Street
between Lantern Hill Drive and Ashland Creek Drive. The property is irregularly shaped and
has an area of approximately 26,741 square feet. The property currently contains an existing
house, a detached guest cottage, and a shed. A shared 12-foot wide driveway serving the
subject property and six additional properties traverses the site for a length of approximately
120 feet; this driveway is paved and covers approximately 1,695 square feet (or 6.3 percent)
of the subject property.
The application notes that the property is generally level at its west end, where the house,
driveway and guest cottage sit, but slopes downward from west to east at approximately 15-
35 percent. The portion of the property where the proposed replacement house is to sit is on
slopes of less than 25 percent, with the exception of a small area of man-made cut slopes
created with the construction of the existing house. A slope analysis prepared by project
architect Carlos Delgado, has been provided with the application along with a letter from
Surveyor Shawn Kampmann of Polaris Survey concurring with Delgado's analysis that the
areas to be disturbed have a natural slope of less than 25 percent, and explaining that this
analysis was based on "catch points of the previously existing natural grade prior to the
existing excavated cut and re-graded area that was done prior to construction of the existing
house and driveway areas within the proposed building envelope." Based on the slope
information provided by Delgado and Kampmann, it appears that while a small area with
slopes greater than 25 percent is to be disturbed, the slopes to be impacted were created
through sitework associated with construction of the existing home and driveway, and the
natural slopes in this area are less than 25 percent. As such, no Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit has been required.
The primary natural features of the site are its existing trees; a tree inventory prepared by
local arborist Tom Myers has been provided with the application, and it identifies a total of
25 trees on or near the subject property six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or
greater. These include oak, pine, cypress, cedar, madrone, and fir. The application proposes
to retain and protect all but two ofthese trees: a 12-inch d.b.h. Oak identified in the inventory
as Tree #2 and a 22-inch d.b.h. Oak identified as Tree #5. Both trees are located so that their
root zones are within the proposed building footprint. Because these removals are proposed
for a single family residentially zoned lot occupied only by a detached dwelling and
associated accessory structures and are not subject to a Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit, no tree removal permit is required.
Granite Street is considered to be a neighborhood street in this vicinity, and is paved with
curbs and gutters in place. Sidewalks and park row planting strips are not in place on either
side of Granite in this area.
The subject parcel and surrounding properties immediately to the north and west are zoned
Woodland Residential (WR). Properties to the east along the west side of Granite Street are
zoned Single Family Residential (R-l-1 0), while Lithia Park on the east side of Granite is
zoned R-I-7.5. To the northwest, properties are zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5). Within
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report.dds
Page 2 of 7
the Woodland Residential zoning district, minimum lot sizes are based on property slope,
with those properties having an average slope of less than 40 percent required to have a
minimum size of two acres, and those having greater slopes requiring greater minimum sizes
so that those properties with average slopes over 60 percent are required to have a minimum
size of ten acres, and those within the city limits but outside the urban growth boundary
required to have a minimum size of20 acres. Lot coverage allowances throughout the WR
district are limited to no more than seven percent of the site.
Conditional Use Permit Proposal
The existing lot is only 0.61 acres, significantly less than the two-acre minimum lot size for
the WR zoning district, and the existing development ofthe subject property including the
house, guest house, shed, driveway, parking, patio and sidewalks already covers
approximately 18.9 percent ofthe site while no more than seven percent coverage is allowed
within the district. The existing lot coverage and the structures and impervious surfaces
contributing thereto are thus considered to be non-conforming.
The WR zoning regulations provide for changes to non-conforming uses or structures
through the Conditional Use Permit process, and refer to the additional requirements in AMC
18.68.090, where it is noted that "a non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered except as follows:"
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(8 and
C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more
restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained
when the use is changed to a permitted use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18. 104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(8 and
C), nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or
the footprint modified, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be
obtained when the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be restored or rehabilitated)f is not changed
in size or shape, provided that the use of the structure is not changed except
if in conformance with the procedures of Section 18.68. 090.A. 1 above.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal maintenance
and repair of a non-conforming structure or its restoration to a safe condition
when declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting public
safety.
5. A legal nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that is damaged to an
extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be restored only if the
damage was not intentionally _caused by the properly owner and the
nonconformity is not increased. Any residential structure (s), including
multiple-family, in a residential zone damaged beyond 50% of its
replacement cost by a catastrophe, such as fire that is not intentionally
caused by the owner, may be reconstructed at the original density provided
the reconstruction is commenced within 2 years after the catastrophe.
With the current application, the applicants are proposing to demolish the existing house and
construct a replacement house on the site. The application materials submitted describe the
existing house as "inundated with mold" and as having "various other integrity issues", and
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 3 of 7
explain that the type of mold found spread throughout the house is called stachybotrys, which
can be toxic and dangerous to humans. It goes on to note that other types of toxic, but less
immediately dangerous molds have also been found to be present. A DemolitionlRelocation
Review Permit was approved by the Building Official on August 7, 2009 to allow demolition
of the existing structure. The replacement house proposed is not a reconstruction, as it will
involve a new design with an expanded footprint.
To address the non-conforming lot coverage, the applicants propose to remove the existing
111 square foot shed, to reduce the area of the existing paved driveway from 1,653 square
feet to 1,004 square feet, and to reduce the impervious surface dedicated to patio and
sidewalk from 184 square feet to 37 square feet. While the footprint is proposed to increase
from 1,156 square feet to 2,040 square feet this expansion is occurring in areas already
covered by driveways or structures, and the net result of the proposal is that the overall lot
coverage on the site is to decrease from 18.9 percent to 18.8 percent, a net reduction of23
square feet which brings the subject property nearer to compliance with lot coverage limits.
II. Proiect Impact
The project requires a Conditional Use Permit because there is an existing non-conforming
structure on the site which is being modified through the demolition of the existing house
and the construction of a replacement house which includes changes to the size and shape of
the structure. The application was scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning
Commission due to ordinance requirements because the proposal involves a Conditional Use
Permit for a new structure, and not out of any concern over the proposal itself.
A. Conditional Use Permit
Single family dwellings and associated accessory structures are permitted outright within the
zoning district. The subject property already contains an existing house which is currently
served by all necessary city facilities including water, sewer, paved access, electricity, and
urban storm drainage. The issues to be considered are generally limited to the proposed
construction of the replacement house on a property where the lot coverage already exceeds
that allowed by ordinance, and the Conditional Use Permit process provides the means to
consider the proposal in terms of any potentially adverse impacts on the livability of the
impact area.
The application materials note that traffic impacts; the generation of noise, light and glare; air
quality including the generation of dust, odors or other environmental pollutants; and the
development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan remain
unchanged with the construction ofthe replacement house. The submittal materials focus on
issues of similarity in bulk, scale and coverage, and upon architectural compatibility as the
approval criteria most relevant to the proposal.
The applicants have provided conceptual elevations of the proposed house along with an
analysis which addresses the average living space for houses in the vicinity (see applicants'
Exhibit A). Based on this submittal, the average square footage ofliving area for homes in
the neighborhood is 2,371 square feet with a range from 884 square feet to 3,866 square feet.
This same submittal notes that the footprints of the homes, including living space and
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report.dds
Page 40f7
garages ranges from 1,040 square feet to 2,900 square feet. The home proposed with the
application has a 2,,040 square foot footprint, placing it within the normal range for the area.
The application notes that the proposed home is of a contemporary design, stepped into the
embankment, with an emphasis on a southern orientation to allow for natural heat gain, light
and ambience, and suggests that while modern the design is not significantly different than
the existing home or others found in the immediate vicinity.
Staff believe that the materials provided have adequately addressed the Conditional Use
Permit approval criteria, and demonstrate that while the proposal involves modifications to a
site with non-conforming lot coverage, the proposal itself will not adversely impact the
surrounding neighborhood and in fact results in a slight reduction in the overall lot coverage
of the subject property.
III. Procedural - ReQuired Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in 18.104 as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning
district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with
relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City,
State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject
property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the
subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the
proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review
of the proposed use.
The criteria for modification of a non-conforming use are described in 18.68.090 as follows:
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Ausnak
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 5 of 7
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows:
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided
in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section
18.104.050(8 and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one
of the same or a more restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use
Permit need not be obtained when the use is changed to a permitted
use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided
in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section
18.104.050(8 and C), nonconforming_structure may be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed or the footprint modified, except that a
Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the addition or
extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be restored or rehabilitatedJf is not
changed in size or shape, provided that the use of the structure is not
changed except if in conformance with the procedures of Section
18.68.090.A.1 above.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal
maintenance and repair of a non-conforming structure or its
restoration to a safe condition when declared to be unsafe by any
official charged with protecting public safety.
5. A legal nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that is
damaged to an extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be
restored only if the damage was not intentionally_caused by the
property owner and the nonconformity is not increased. Any
residential structure(s), including multiple-family, in a residential zone
damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost by a catastrophe, such
as fire that is not intentionally caused by the owner, may be
reconstructed at the original density provided the reconstruction is
commenced within 2 years after the catastrophe.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
As noted above, the proposal involves the construction of a house to replace one that is to be
demolished, and only requires a Conditional Use Permit because the existing lot coverage for
the subject property exceeds that allowed by ordinance. In staffs view, the replacement
home will have no more adverse impact on the livability of the area than does the existing
home. The subject property is already developed within an established neighborhood and
involves the construction of a replacement house in the location of the existing house, and
the proposal has been planned in a way that will reduce the overall lot coverage on the site, if
only slightly. As such, staff are supportive of the requested Conditional Use Permit and
recommend approval with the following conditions attached:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report.dds
Page 6 of 7
with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building
permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this
application, an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be
submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) All conditions of the Tree Commission as detailed in their recommendations of
October 8, 2009 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable
ordinances and standards and with the final approval ofthe Staff Advisor.
4) That prior to demolition ofthe existing home, the applicant shall obtain a Demolition
Permit and the necessary inspections to verify that existing utilities are properly
addressed during the demolition.
5) That the building permit submittal materials shall include:
a) Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public utility or
access easements.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, and
vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas. Lot coverage on the property shall
be limited to that approved with this application, and any increase in coverage
would require a modification of this Conditional Use Permit approval.
c) Exterior building materials, paint colors and light fixtures shall be consistent
with those approved as part of the application and compatible with the
surrounding area. Exterior building color and material samples, and
specifications of the light fixtures and any necessary shielding or shrouding,
shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval
of the Staff Advisor.
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Staff
Advisor prior to site work including building demolition, storage of
materials, or permit issuance. The Verification Permit is to inspect the
identification of the two Oaks to be removed and the installation of tree
protection fencing for the other trees that are to be retained. The tree
protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance
with AMC 18.61.200.B and the approved Tree Protection Plan, and shall be
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including
demolition, storage of materials or permit issuance.
b) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including provisions for
fire apparatus access and associated angle of approach, easements, turn-
around, and identification of obstructions; firefighter access paths and work
area; fire flow; hydrant distance; approved addressing; and wildfire hazard
area fuel breaks shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building
permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is applicable. Fire
Department requirements shall be clearly addressed in the building permit
submittals.
Planning Action 2009-01051
Applicant: Zingarelli-Rusnak
Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report.dds
Page 7 of 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR A PROPOSED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REPLACE THE EXISTING
HOUSE LOCATED AT 514 GRANITE STREET.
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE
LOT'S EXISTING NON-CONFORMING LOT COVERAGE WHICH
IS CAUSED BY THE LOT'S NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE.
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ASHLAND, OREGON
BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
P,.,rra 1 ,.,..f' 1 ()
,,1 A r:....,.,....;+a ~f-raa+
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 514 Granite Street, 391E17AA Tax Lot #1105
PLANNING ACTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to replace the
existing house located at 514 Granite Street. The subject house is inundated with "mold"
and is scheduled to be removed as soon as procedurally legal (Demolition Permit). The
proposal is to replace the house with a new house that will generally sit within the old
house's footprint and generally be similar in size.
The CUP is necessary because the "existing" house's lot coverage (impervious surface
area for its footprint, driveway and sidewalk) exceeds the zone's maximum allowed
amount. This is predominately due to the fact the lot's .61 acres (legally created) is three
times less than the zone's 2 acre minimum. As such, "any" ground floor expansion or
even sidewalk improvement would be subject to a planning action and discretionary
reVIew.
OWNERS/APPLICANTS:
Ron Rusnak & Lisa Zingarelli-Rusnak
514 Granite Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-2575
LAND USE PLANNING:
Urban Development Services, LLC
485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-3334
ARCHITECT:
Carlos Delgado
545 "A" Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-552-9502
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: WR - 2 acre minimum lot size (87,120 sq. ft.).
LOT SIZE (per survey): .61 acres (26,741 sq. ft.) "Legal-Non-Conforming"
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
Chapter 18.14 W-R, Woodland Residential District
Chapter 18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints
Chapter 18.68 General Regulations
Chapter 18.104 Conditional Use Permits
l)",,"a ') ,..,.-t 1 (\
,,1 A n...,,-n~ta ~t..aat
ADJACENT ZONINGfUSE:
West: WR
East: WR and R-I-IO
South: R-I-7.5
North: RR.5
Subject Site: WR - Woodland Residential District
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION:
Background: A pre-application meeting was held on June lOth, 2009, at which time
comments, questions and observations were raised by the Planning and other City Staff.
No other planning or historical information pertaining to these parcels appears within
City records other than various Building Permits for the additions to the house and site's
accessory structures.
Property Description: The subject property is located at 514 Granite Street and has an
existing house, guest cottage and shed. The property is .61 acres (26,741 sq. ft.) in size.
It is trapezoidal in shape, size and slope - similar to its surrounding parcels. The property
is generally level at its west end, where the house, driveway and guest cottage sit, but the
slopes downward from west to east at approximately 15% - 35%. The portion of the
property where the replacement house will sit is on slopes less than 25% grade, except for
"cut slopes" that are "man made" and created with the construction of the existing house.
Traversing through the property is a "shared" driveway serving the subject property as
well as six additional home sites (four with existing houses and two vacant). The
driveway is now paved, but up until a few years ago was dirt and compacted gravel. The
driveway is "T" shaped, measures 12' in width and extends approximately 450' in either
direction. The shared driveway traverses through a number of the parcels via easements
which include approximately 120' of length and 1,695 square feet of area of the subject
parcel. The portion of the driveway, solely on the subject property, is approximately 100'
in length, 10' to 30' in width and covers 1,653 square feet in impervious surface area.
Existing House Description: According to Jackson County Assessor Records, the
existing home was constructed in 1950.The home is two-stories with a basement and is
approximately 2,362 square feet in size. The home sits above Granite Street looking over
Lithia Creek and neighboring houses. The house does not have a garage, but does include
an extended driveway that can easily accommodate up to five vehicles.
As noted previously, the existing house is subject to demolition due to mold and various
other integrity issues. The type of mold found spread throughout the house is called
Stachybotrys which is very toxic and dangerous to humans. In addition, there were other
types of mold found that are also considered toxic, but less immediate and dangerous as
the Strachybotrys species.
P"rr<> 1. rooF 1 ()
"1;1 r::..."....;+<> ~+..<><>+
West Elevation of House
Mold - Main Floor (prior to recent incasing)
Proposed House Description: The submitted plans illustrate the new home as being
contemporary in style with an emphasis on southern orientation for natural heat gain,
light and ambiance. Similar to the existing house, the new home will step within the
property's embankment with the ground floor being a basement garage accessed at the
same level as the existing driveway. The main floor is the predominate volume providing
the majority of the home's living space, but with a smaller second floor recessed back
from the downhill elevation minimizing the home's mass. The home will sit generally
within the location of the existing house as well as a portion of the existing driveway and
sidewalk area. The home's footprint will be 2,040 square feet in area and measure 34' X
60'.
NOTE: Once the demolition decision occurs (application submitted 7/31/09) and the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) herein is approved, the applicants intend to finalize the
new home's architectural plans. The plans submitted with this CUP application identify
the exact proposed footprint of the house, the revised driveway design and "generally"
accurate elevations of the home's exterior. However, due to costs associated with
complete architectural plans (floor plans, footing designs, roof designs, mechanical
systems, etc.) mixed with the discretionary process of a CUP, the applicants have
submitted the minimum necessary in order for staff and neighbors to fully evaluate the
"lot coverage" elements of the proposal.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The applicants are subject to a CUP process primarily
due to the fact the parcel size (.61 acres) is significantly less than the WR zone's
minimum 2 acres which creates a non-conforming lot coverage issue. This is a significant
discrepancy as the WR zone's lot coverage allowance is 7% where as if this .61 acre
parcel was in a ~ acres zone (RR-.5), the lot coverage would be 20% and the existing
house, as well as the proposed house, would comply. This factor has caused numerous lot
coverage problems for a number of the property owners within this area which also have
undersized parcels within a large lot zoning designation. The history on the area's zoning
is unclear, but considering the number of parcels that are ~ acre in size or less is an
indication the zoning's initial designation wasn't correctly applied (see Exhibit A).
However, this is not surprising considering the technological limitations that'era
compared to today's advanced mapping abilities.
D"",,,, 11 ,....t' 1 (\
"111 n.."n;t",
Compounding the lot coverage issue is the long private driveway that serves a total of
seven parcels. Because the driveway meanders through various parcels, each parcel
having the driveway on their property must include its impervious surface area within the
maximum lot coverage calculations. Although these are "definition" constraints within
the Municipal Code, the resolution would be to convert the narrow driveway to a public
street where lot coverage is not counted against the lot, but the end result would be far
more earth disturbance and impervious surface coverage.
As such, when one considers the undersized lot compared to the zoning's lot coverage
requirement and the definition of lot coverage, any "modification" to the home's
footprint or impervious surface area is going to be subject to a CUP procedure. However,
in this application's case, significant effort has been put forth to not increase the lot
coverage, but to work within the already existing non-conforming amount. The existing
and proposed lot coverage is as follows:
Existing Lot Coverage: Proposed Lot Coverage:
Building Footprint: 1,156 sq. ft. Building Footprint: 2,040 sq. ft.
Shed Structure: III sq. ft. Shed Structure: removed
Guest House: 262 sq. ft. Guest House: 262 sq. ft.
Driveway to Residence: 1,653 sq. ft. Driveway to Residence: 1,004 sq. ft.
Shared Driveway: 1,695 sq. ft. Shared Driveway: 1,695 sq. ft.
Patio and Sidewalk: 184 sq. ft. Patio and Sidewalk: 37 sq. ft.
Total Existing Coverage: 5,061 sq. ft. Total Proposed Coverage: 5,038 sq. ft.
Percent (5,061 /26,741) 18.9% Percent (5,061 126,741) 18.8%
As evidenced in the above table, the applicants have been diligent in their efforts to not
exceed the existing lot coverage which would add a "Variance" to the application which
would be significantly more costly and add additional discretion which are both beyond
the abilities of the applicants to absorb. As such, in order to accommodate the new
house's footprint, the applicants removed the small shed structure, shifted the house
"over" the existing impervious driveway area and eliminated small portions of the
driveway. These changes are best illustrated on the attached Site Plan (sheet AS 1.0), but
the overall impervious reduction is generally equal to the gain ofthe new house.
It's important for the Planning staff and Planning Commission to understand that the
shared driveway serving the other lots has been in place since the 1950's and it alone
absorbs 33% (1,695 sq. ft. 1 5,061) of the total amount of lot coverage attributed to this
parcel. When removed from the calculation, the lot coverage would be approximately
12.5%.
Finally, the subject parcel, as well as numerous other parcels in the vicinity, is far less
than the WR zone's minimum lot size of2 acres. In the applicant's case, the subject lot is
only ~ (26,741 sq. ft.) of the required minimum acreage, therefore allowing only 1,871
square feet of lot coverage. If the parcel was two acres, the 7% coverage would result in
generous 6,084 square foot lot coverage. Conversely, ifthe subject 'li acre parcel was in a
RR.5 zone ('li acre minimum), the lot coverage would be 20% and allow a lot
Pn",a " n-t 1 n
"111 n..n....~ta ~t..aat
5,348 square feet which exceeds the applicants proposal - even with the unusual
circumstance of the shared driveway.
III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
NOTE: For clarity, the following has been formatted in "outline" form with the City's approval criteria
noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, due to repetiveness in the required
findings of fact, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of
fact are complete.
18.104.050 Criteria for Conditional Use Permit:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning
district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or
Federal law or program.
The residential use and residential structure are permissible outright and comply with all
Comprehensive Plan policies. The CUP only relates to the "modification" of the non-
conforming status of existing lot coverage which the house's footprint is a part of.
Section 18.68.090 #2 of the Municipal Code States:
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows:
2) When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18. 104. 050(B and C),
nonconforming_structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or the
footprint modified, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained
when the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title.
The technical reality of this application is the fact the structure's footprint, along with the
shared driveway area, private driveway area and miscellaneous sidewalk and patio areas,
exceed the maximum amount of lot coverage for the lot's WR zoning designation which
is only 7%. Any modification of the lot coverage (impervious surface area), because it is
legal non-conforming, require CUP findings and approval.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
The proposed house will not have an increase on City facilities for water, sewer, access,
electricity, urban storm drainage or transportation beyond what it currently has today
with the existing house. Furthermore, there are no existing capacity issues with the City's
infrastructure in Granite Street.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot
with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed: p.se/o~
'0"0-0 h. n.f' 1 ()
,,1 A nr"....;to ~troot
the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be
considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
The proposed home is similar in scale, bulk, and coverage when compared to not only the
target use of the zone (one residential unit), but also the homes within the immediate
vicinity as described in the table above. The illustrations attached (sheets AS 1.0 and
Al.O) represent where the future home will sit (coverage) and generally what it will look
like (scale and bulk). There is likely to be changes to the elevations, but these will
primarily deal with window patterns, roof line orientation, exterior materials and possibly
a minor wall adjustment, but nothing that would be constituted as a significant alteration
from what has been submitted as part of this application.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
Again, the existing house will be replaced by a new house, primarily due to the fact of a
significant mold issue. Nevertheless, the traffic generation will remain the same.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
The proposed home's architecture is slightly modem in appearance, but not too different
that other homes found in the vicinity. As such, the home's architecture is compatible.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
Again, the existing house will be replaced by a new house. The air quality of dust, odors
or other environmental pollutants will be no greater than what was typically generated by
the existing house or any other typical single family residence.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
No additional noise, light or glare will occur with the new house that is not normally
generated by a typical single family residence.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The City's Comprehensive Plan designation for this property as well as the neighboring
properties is Woodland. The proposal does not propose to alter the Comprehensive Plan
nor does it propose to impact adjacent lands in such away they would alter the
designation. The proposal is simply to replace an existing house with a new house.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
If for any reason the Hearing Authority believes there are other factors to consider,. ~py
applicants are more than willing to participate in their resolution or mitigation. HO'fever,
P"n-", '7 Af' 1 (\
" 1 A r:...."....;+a c;,:+...",,,,+
p\i!
as stated, the circumstances related to this proposal primarily relate to the fact the parcel,
and its adjacent neighbors, were likely zoned incorrectly as the vast majority of the lots in
this area are significantly less than the required size and to the applicant's knowledge, all
of the lots pre-existed zoning.
IV. CONCLUSSION:
The applicants have met with most of the surrounding neighbors to explain the
circumstances with the Conditional Use Permit and the Demolition. To the applicant's
knowledge, none of the neighbors appeared to indicate a concern and welcomed the
proposed changes.
The applicants look forward to taking the next few steps which include finalizing the
architectural plans for the new house, demolishing the existing house, constructing their
new house and living in Ashland.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A" Granite Street Lot 1 House Size Summary
Exhibit "B" Granite Street Context Map
Exhibit "C" Granite Street Zoning Designations
Exhibit "D" Site Plan
Exhibit "E" Preliminary Elevations
p",....", Q A+ 1 ()
.::: 1;1 r:..."",;..", "'''..",a''
House & Driveway Photos:
Top of Shared Driveway looking Northeasterly
Shared drive down toward Granite St.
Mid point of shared driveway looking
North Northeast
P"rYa Q A+ 1 ()
,,1 A n..."....;+a ~h.aa+
Small shed structure to be removed (Note: The tree in front of the
shed is to remain and indicates where the front of the house will
extend to.
Existing concrete and bricks to be replaced to eliminate tripping hazards.
view from back of house (looking south)
DC"TO 1 () ",f' 1 ()
"1 A n.."....~+o ~+..Oo+
-lC
>.
~
co
E
E
:::l
C/)
(])
N
C/)
(])
(/')
<C :::l
0
I- I
aJ o?S
-
J: 0
>< ;;:::::;
co
w 0::
.....
0
-'
.....
(])
(])
~
.....
C/)
(])
~
c
co
~
(9
Cl I
I:: (5
'> .s
:J <ll~
0 Cl>-
+' ell ra
<ll ... 3: '$.- ;:,'< ;:,'< ;:,'< ;:,'< ;:,'< ';:j2. ';:j2. ;:,'< ;:,'<
N ell <ll 0 0 ';:j2. ;:,'< 0 0 0 ;:,'< ;:,'< ;:,'< " "
en Cl> 0) c: 0) 0 0 '<t "": 0 ~ (!) 0 0 <:! "":
.;: 10 <") "- cri ..- c:i ~ (!)
+' (3-C N '<t ..t ,...: ..- co ,...: 0 0) ,...: .... ....
0 .... .... ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- .... ....
...J 1::"':
.- (.)
.... ~ .5
0
0 ell
:;::::l a.
ell (/')
0::
~ LO 0 0 (!) 0) 0 0 0 co '<t (!) '<t N
~ LO '<t 0 LO 61). 0 0 0 0 N '<t C') 0) 0
+' <ll
I:: Cl N q 0) .... '<to N. (!). co 0) "!. 0 ..- ~:
'i: f.1: N ..... N ..... .... N N ..- N ..... ..... N ..- III ...J
a. It: ...J
+' ell ~ <l:
0 Cl ....
0 (fl ~ 0
U- :J 0
... Q. I
<ll :;::::l
U- Cl C ell
d-I:: 0 0::
N
(/') '> It: ~
:J 3: >
<l:
>- ;1) "<t co N co (!) (!) LO N ..- ..... "<t 0) ....
c co C') (!) "<t (!) (!) 0) 0 C') ..... 0 LO r--
~ co LO <") cq LO. co "!. LO co ..... f'-. f'- (")
<ll 0 N N N- .... N C') N C') ..- N ..- N N
N i:l::
en C"
<ll (/')
E <ll
0 ::c
::c ell
>
:J
<ll
::c I:: "'C
.E ell 0
> <ll 0
.E n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. 0 n. :J .!::! .s::.
tq tq tq tq tq LO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ...
~ I I I I I 0:: I 0:: 0:: 0:: I , I <ll (/') 0
I:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0::: 0::: ..- 0::: Cl<ll.o
,
:J 0::: 0:: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: ellE~
0 Qj 0 .-
U I g>::c ~
I <(
Cl Q)
I:: LO :0
'2 n. n. n. 0 0 0 n. l!1
0:: 0::: 0:: 0:: 0::: ~ ~ ~ F';- ..... ..- ..- ~
0 I I , >. 'm
N S S S S S I 0:: 0:: ..- ..... ..- ..- 0:: <ll
0::: I 0:: , , ~ >
~ 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: C1l
:J 15
u (fl
2 c
(fl
+' "<t LO LO ..- LO 0 (!) N 0 LO ..... 0 N '(ii C1l
U- N 0 0) '<t (!) CO N ..- '<t 0) (!) CO CO "'C 3:
0 "<t '<t N r-- N f'-. C') f'- (!) N f'- f'- ~ C C1l
r-: r-: cO <<i Jri ..- ..... CO cr) CO ..... ..- I.C) C1l CO
(/') ..- ..... N N N ..... C') ..... ..- N ..- (fl ~
I:: a.
C1l <ll
<ll ~ U
Cl if:' ~
ell
f! <3 :J
U (fl
<l: >. (fl
~~ C :J
0
:J .~
<ll 0
Cl f'- 0 (])
ell ..- CO ~ (!) ~ ..- N I.C) (!) I:: a.
<ll (!) to N 0) "": ~ C') .~
... c:i ci 0 c:i 0 0 0 0 c:i c:i 0
u (fl
<( .><: >-
u C1l
C1l 3:
..., (])
E .:::
I 0 -0
... ~
<ll Cl
.0 1~lc~ I "'C C
E (!) to 0 C') 0) CO 0 0 0 0 (]) :.a
0 0 C') 0 0 ..- 0 U
:l 0 0 0 0 0 '- :J
Z .... ..- "<t ..- ..- ..- CO (!) to C') (!) :J (3
..... .... ..- ..- ..- ..- 0
+' (fl C
0 C1l 15
...J
I CO Z
0 ~
~ ~
ms
005
231M}
a13
h
A
P!;;'8SE' ff.,Cyr:ifl with colGred Druce gr<1([:;, p3P8:
\rr~)
to]
10<!
007
~~'J\
\ ~.A 'I
\y"~"
~f1is
r.'.
}-!
r""~ II
00-3-
0011
,~
'!tOll [~j
.D
'!fur-\..
'I.....~.<"
1&
D
2100
i"J._. .:.>
\4..2,5 ):::_~
:h.26 <;-
~ - "- .,;'
'?T~LI\200J,J,
1W ;rJ
<. . _ - L.,,J
....rfiJ i;~::~---i
113"
i~""""
~""ir-.....J
/'.._,.~::(:l
Mif'/
t::J
".17tHl
OO{l
"'-
/ ~.,
1);1'~'
r~
i'ml1
OO{l
Exhibit B
@I
'L II
.-~
li[f{J
2;fttJ
()
..
-t: ~!:I.
c~;.r~r- /
t .u'
..r-." a.i[fo{}
'!I3;f}[l
'HJ{}
JACKSON COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Map Maker
Application
Front Counter Legend
HiqlTlighled Feature
lax Lot Outlines
Tax Lot NumbDfs
;V
BUildings
JACKSON
COUNTY
o r r g 0 II
I~l!
Created with MapMaker
This map is based on a digital database
compiled by Jackson County From a variety
,.~OO ~:sS~~~~~I/f~~k:~~r;,O~~~s~~~~,o~~ccePt
positional accuracy. There are no
warranties, expressed or implied.
Map created on 81712009 1 :03:38 PM using web.jacksoncounty.org
10S
007
goo
1121
un:
1123
1126
U16
RR-..5
1131 11J,o
aoo
100
R-1-7..5
1300
~I
.0
~t:1<
i;::'
JACKSON COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Map Maker
Application
Front COllnter Legend
Highlighted Feature
Tax Lot Oullln,,"
fax Lot Numbers
Ashland Zoning
o Cl
C-1.[1
El
o HC
o M.l
NM
o R110
o R13.o,
o RIo
o R.17.o
o R.2
R.3
RR.,5
RR.l
so
.WR
iNR.20
Buildings
JACKSON
COUNTY
Oregon
This map is based on a digital database
COf'T1piled by Jackson County From a variety
of,sources.:~ack~fl,County cannot accept
responsibllyfor errors;Oi'n!SSiof}~, or
positional accuracy. There:Bre ~
warranties, expresSed or U'l1.~i~.
Map created on 8f7/2009 1:02:40 PM uSing web:jatksoncounty.org
BAN D V LOPM N S
LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
September 4th, 2009
City of Ashland
Attn: Derek Severson
59 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: 514 Granite Street; PA# 2009-01051; Addendum
In response to your August 19th, 2009 letter, regarding the application submittals for 514 Granite
Street (Conditional Use Permit), attached is the requested information regarding Slope Analysis and
Tree Inventory/Tree Protection Plan. Further, I've attempted to address staffs questions below and
suggest this correspondence be included in the record as an addendum.
Slope Analysis: Although the property does exist within the boundaries of the Hillside Overlay
District and there are portions of the property that "naturally" exceed the Overlay's 25% slope
threshold (area near Granite Street), the area where the existing house sits and the area where the
proposed home will be constructed are on lands that are naturally less than 25%. Of course this area
does include a "man made" retaining wall and cut embankment when the house was originally
constructed in 1950, but its original slope prior was less than 20%. These "man-made" cuts are
fairly evident to see in the field (see pictures below), but as suggested in your letter, I've requested a
licensed Surveyor, as well as the project Architect, to re-asses the slopes in question and they have
both concluded the "natural" slope in the area of the new and proposed house is actually less then
20%.
A letter from the Surveyor, Shawn Kampman, Polaris Survey, dated August 24th, 2009, is enclosed
and essentially states he concurs with the Slope Analysis prepared by the project Architect (see
Exhibit D, Site Plan of 8/7/09 submittal) which identify cross slopes that, at the most, are only 20%.
The Surveyor adds that his slope analysis was actually less than the Architect's 20% slope figure -
all of which are based on surveyed topography and natural landmarks. Again, this is best illustrated
on the submitted 8/7/09 Site Plan, although faint, where three random cross slopes have been
provided which were delineated from a group of mature trees above the house to a group of mature
trees below the house that show a 17%, 18% and a 20% slope - all of which are significantly less
than the 25% threshold.
Tree Inventory/Tree Protection Plan: A Tree Inventory and Tree Protection Plan are also
attached per 18.61.200. The inventory and plan were completed by a licensed Arborist, Tom Myers,
Phone: 541 -482 - 3 334
Fax: 541-482-3336
who will be retained during the demolition and construction process as required. The Arborist will
monitor the activities and recommend, if necessary, any special preservation techniques and
mitigation suggestions where needed in order to ensure the survival and health of the trees. The
applicants desire to retain the property's trees, but two trees are proposed to be removed based on
their health or their direct location within the footprint of the proposed house. These two trees
would likely have been removed already under the Municipal Code's exemption provision's
18.61.035 B. or 18.62.030 T., but the applicant's desire to retain them as long as possible and to
verify that the Demolition Permit and Conditional Use Permit are approved.
Nevertheless, because the application does include the request for a Conditional Use Permit and
desire to be thorough and help expedite the process in order to minimize seasonal construction
issues, Findings have been provided below that address the two trees that are proposed to be
removed with this application:
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to
applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff
Advisor may require the buildingfootprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate
verification of the permit application; and
The subject trees site very near the proposed home's new footprint. This footprint has essentially
been determined due to the limitation of the lot coverage provisions and circumstances associated
with the lot's existing impervious driveway. In an attempt to comply with the lot's coverage
limitation, the applicants were forced to pull the new home towards the west and "sit" on top of the
existing driveway in order to not "increase" the lot coverage more than what exists today. In doing
so, the two trees in question are proposed to be removed due to their direct or close proximity to the
new home.
As noted above, there are "exempt" tree removal activities in the Municipal Code that would allow
the subject trees to be removed and therefore the proposal is consistent with the Site Design and Use
Standards and the Physical and Environmental Constraints standards.
2. 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; and
According to the project Arborist, the area is plentiful of tree canopy and existing vegetation to
protect the site's soils and remaining tree's from excessive winds.
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
Phone: 541-621-8393
Fax: 541-482-3649
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. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density 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 or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen
the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
Again, according to the project Arborist, the area is plentiful of tree canopy and existing vegetation
to protect the site's soils and remaining tree's from wind or other possible negative impacts.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the
permit.
As described above, the applicant's contend the proposal shouldn't be subject to mitigation
(replacement or payment in lieu of) due to the fact the trees in question are permitted "outright" to
be removed under the existing provisions of the Municipal Code. However, in order to minimize
further delay, the applicants are willing to accept a condition of approval if it is deemed necessary
based on the criteria and findings associated with the Conditional Use Permit.
If for any reason there are any questions relating to the above two matters or items relating to the
previously submitted application materials, please do not hesitate to contact me at 541-821-3752.
Sincerely,
Mark Knox
Urban Development Services, LLC
cc: Applicants
Phone: 541-621-8393
Fax: 541-482-3649
August 24, 2009
Urban Development Services
585 West Nevada Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Attn: Mark Knox
Re: Rusak / Zingarelli -. 514 Granite Street
Assessor's Map No, 391E 17AA, Tax Lot 1105
Dear Mark,
Per your request regarding the above referenced project, I have reviewed the slope
analysis performed by licensed architect Carlos Delgado around the proposed building
envelope on his plan dated August 8, 2009, and concur that the slopes shown on the
plan are less than 20'1'0. My analysis actually was less than one percent of the average
slope that the architect denotes on his plan. The area of the slopes analyzed were
between the catch points of the previously existing natural grade prior to the existing
excavated cut and re-graded area that was done prior to construction of the existing
house and driveway areas within the proposed building envelope,
Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or commen'ts.
Yours truly,
Shawn Kampmann
Professional Land Surveyor
~?:\surveys\546--09\l(l1ox ,,,lope anaIY(.;Ir> le1~ter' 200D--08.24.doc
[) x
::5 it i
j' C () ji 7
11
r n (J n e:
f ) (J
00
r' C:i x
i// ,v () 1 i ~~ f..' r v (; {; ()
i i 'i
7
e
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-601-2069
Mark Knox
485 W. Nevada St.
Ashland, OR 97520
9/03/09
Tree Protection Plan for 514 Granite Street
The Tree Protection Plan for 514 Granite Street is designed to address the needs of all existing
trees within the project. The trees are identified by number on the plan as well as by numbered tag
attached to the tree in the field. The specified tree protection zones (as stipulated in the enclosed
tree inventory) will be drawn on the plans as well as delineated on the site by approved fencing.
Two trees with protection zones that extend within the foundation lines of the building (tree # 2 and
tree #5) will need to be removed. All other trees within the building project boarders will need
protection. The enclosed specifications detail exactly how the trees are to be protected. The building
contractor and subcontractors will meet with a certified arborist before and during construction to
insure that the correct measures are in place. A certified arborist must supervise any work done
within the specified tree protection zone. A certified arborist will conduct an inspection of the trees
during and after construction. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan please call
me at 601-2069.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
I
.~. Upper Lim.b-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone 541-482-.3667
Species
I I
I I
~ I
~oo9L.
I Crown I[ II Species I Pro~:~~ion
DBH in Height I Radius in tolerance to zone radius
inches in feet feet I Condition I construction in feet Notes
23m ,8 ~ 25 """ -Imod'"", . 23 L _ . .. . _ __
----L 12 4~ poor I moderate 12 I remove, (trunk wound) ~
- p I. 'LI -'-i""--Im.-.,, I _'2 ...1
~~~ fair moderate ~ 15 I
__~ 50 I 30 fair moderate ~ 22 remove (inside building footprint)
~o 45 24 good t'"" ! 2C
I 12 41 24 I poor I poor ~ 15 I Multi trunk (I stem dead)
17 I 40 24 Jfair I moderate I 17 I Multi trunk
18 48 14 Ifair [moderate I 18 I'
9 L-- 7 fair good I
I
1...
--
Tree Inventory for 514 Granite _~I---
Tree #
~-
3
Quercus kel/oggii
Quercus ke/loggii
9
~~_~ Quercus kefloggii copse
Pseudotsuga menziesii
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~-
20
21
~-
23
24
25
--
Cupressus arizonica
6.75
,
Quercus kefloggii 10 42 15 fair
I Quercus kel/oggii copse I 12 42 19 fair
Arbutus menziesii 8 22 8 Ifair
1 Pseudotsuga menziesii 7 34 8 fair
I
Quercus kettoggii 16 39 15 Ifair
I Quercus kel/oggii 12 38 14 Ifair
Pseudotsuga menziesii -I~r~:- fair
Pinus ponderosa fair
I I
Pseudotsuga menziesii 7 28 6 fair
Quercus kefloggii 11 32 12 fair
Quercus kefloggii 13 33 14 fair
I Pinus ponderosa I 7 30 I 5 fair
Quercus kel/oggii 17 45 30 good
Pinus ponderosa 8 32 5 good
Quercus kefloaaii CODse 13 43 33 laood
10 J
I Multi trunk
~'-11O I
I moderate I 7 1_
mod,"" .1 ~1621 . ..
moderate .Jy~
19-LT--
7.5
-~
moderate
moderate
12
moderate
good
moderate
7
moderate
11
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
good
I moderate
I
[gOOd
moderate
13
Multi trunk
Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction
1. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all
work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
2. Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for
each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may
not be relocated or removed without the written permission of the consultant.
3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone.
If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree.
5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within
the tree protection zone (fenced area).
6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified
arborist and not by construction personnel.
7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that
use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water.
8. If irDury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as
possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is
expected to encounter tree roots.
10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the
soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches.
11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be
installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree protection zone.
12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any
trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone
by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench
and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife. rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.
13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly
with a saw.
14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6
inche~ of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection
zone, either temporarily or permanently.
16. No bum piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or
garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree protection zone.
17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or
smoking is allowed near mulch or trees.
Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing
1. The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work
to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures.
2. The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field.
3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy oftree(s) to remain must be
removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified
arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and under story to
remam.
4. Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated
equipment.
5. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling
and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first
severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting
through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.]
6. Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist.
The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out.
7. All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with
equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out,
not by skidding it across the ground.
8. Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches
9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the
smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. The consultant shall
be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity
10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications
11. A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree
protection zone
12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six
hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health.
13. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6
inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The roadbed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
Specifications for Tree Pruning
1. All trees within the project area shall be pruned to:
a) Clear the crown of diseased, crossing, weak, and dead wood to a minimum size of 1 1/2 inches
diameter.
b) Provide 14 feet of vertical clearance over streets and 8 feet over sidewalks.
c) Remove stubs, cutting outside the woundwood tissue that has formed around the branch.
d) Reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter
branches, no greater than 2 to 3 inches near the ends of the scaffolds.
e) Remove any mistletoe.
2. Where temporary clearance is needed for access, branches shall be tied back to hold them out of
the clearance zone.
3. Pruning shall not be performed during periods of flight of adult boring insects because fresh
wounds attract pests. Pruning shall be performed only when the danger of infestation is past.
4. All pruning shall be performed by a qualified arborist.
5. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree-Pruning Guidelines (International Society of
Arboriculture) and/or the ANSI A300 Pruning Standard (American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations) and adhere to the most recent edition of ANSI Z133.1.
6. Interior branches shall not be stripped out.
7. Pruning cuts larger than 4 inches in diameter, except for dead wood, shall be avoided.
8. Pruning cuts that expose heartwood shall be avoided whenever possible.
9. No more than 20 percent of live foliage shall be removed within the trees.
10. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require
treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the consultant.
11. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees within the tree protection zone
to a maximum depth of six inches leaving the trunk clear of mulch.
z
0
0"'1.;\ . !Yoo f=
laU'pU!W@SOP80 I I () 0 0> 0 I
90. f'ON lOl X\ll \f\IH 3,6S 'ON d\ii\l S,1l0SS3SSV :) llJ D '"
c:tg 3~ ~gl (,,6'ZS,',rS ZOS6'ZSnvS ct: '" I l-
OZ,16 UOOolO PU~IWW' laaJlS \t,v, 00 . llJ
Q:';3 8 0 OZ916 ~O ON\llHS\I I- ~U __0> l---' I- W
~ ~ ~~ lL is 311NV<lO ..~9 Cf) we;> 0--' W 't"'"" :J:
~\tNSnH NOH 'II11l311\t8NIZ liSIl z 0 l-,," llJW W '"
vl:3 ~~ a 1831IH:)(;J\! 0 .0:0 '0:: (j)
~ ~ ~ ~ opB2pO SOPB] u z o' 0<( I
~Cf) 00 g:(9
:r. oj ,,;.;: 3JN301S3~ lN3lt\13J'v'ld3~ ct: z (J) <r: lL
S/C):m . S'\'t- 31\10 NOlldliJ:JS30 a OCI- 0
u... 0 N
I-
a
z
,...,,,..,.In
\--
/
I
I
\
........
."'\. '
...., \ 'c," \,
\.
\
\ ... \~'c
\ \ ~
\~
\, ~.
------/,
'\
'\
.......
~~ r
j ~ z
~ ill ~w
~ ~"- ~~
OW 89/'
@ ~~ ll.lli.....
\ ~ &~. '.i~u.
'- _"a:.-ji o~
, 0 0 '-"'o~~c
'-~\\ 0::::' ! wit""
\n.. ~ / c/)~
r----1 \ / ~e ~~
I 1-'/ o~:;;:o
Ui-, er::b~3J
- 1,/ \" [l ~:j
\ '~~-7::::',,;~::-r
r~j ~_. _ ~/. ',' : <\tj
\t /... -~'"~
\, l~ -I~/ .. /Y:,:~ / \
~'1~} ,
'i'e "I ,!tn' \
-!:k:iiJ . i}I;!
/ \~;\. .. 1~~'/
;,f e/0i r .,~~/
} i
~,
(, ."'~,->-~<~,. ~ ~
/~.I ,:i;C;\:(, .'
]~"-r.;~,, -;,:- ..
:- ;; ':: ~'
~.~~':~';':,~';':- }: ':~: /.:"..'
~ \ ': '
/'
I I
I I
i\ ~ > 'i
I/"'~~'~,)\\ I
i~(',:l> ,\ J ',.. :
" '., . \ "",'.'i\- ;;/ J..-J
~\"'--":'j: 0:',' ".' , ,_ ..'-'~~f~
, I "''''.f
/,\':-'~i,-!~1t- dC':
,i ,Y" ,\, y' dg'
.. "t:,,:'\' r~ ~~ ';~
~, ,!". c',L,
"~,i. ~ \ . 'l) ,
,,<' '. ,}:.~, :-0<.)/' .', ~n I
\~J';'~\~ri'
· \ ,..'f~ ~ II
X" ,.... .'" \i;'
" ~j~" '. ,",2;r
,.' .ii,.. <j' ::~\v.l
/ (\/
" :1/ I
, l~/t~,
1
1
:,1
c',
':1
;11
.c
\
\
\
,
I
\
)
I
J
:~//
""''':''
<,
I
/
~I
,'~'
b
~
.1
'1
~
\'I
~/
/
i:. I
"-:."".1
'I':
'. -..
I
I
'A'o
.1' '"",,~ ' ~
1/~0 ~
I
/
.~
~LO-
LIla"-
;>_1IJ
[('"'"-
tM~~
~g;.<j
0><;:;;
I- Z~a:
LIl :s [)
LIl 0 .0:
~ 0 ~
f/J ~~.:
w G~~
'= [( LIl in
~ s;;;.J
Ii .. '" UJ
(9 ~ 0.: g
;! 0.0:<(
'" N::Oo..
I
h-
I z \1IJ
/
)
1:,U.,IJ,IJ_I!_U.
c/i!t,wl/.lwlt.
ONv-i.i'Ir--ru
3~8~(":!8
N - - Ii;
"
&
~
",~\ .
~ \
~ \
I \
I
\
\
I
\
\
\ :
I
1
I
: I
I.'f,,: ,~~,
~.jl r:'.'. '/!
* O.i].i' t." ..
I ':'. "~..J!.J. .'
J ~~ i; ':" "... ,>,>
,/ ~:: III I ".J, .
{,o' w U J'
\ q., I j /, /
T'I ,
":j- cJ" ~ I j'
'---'---.-...,-'
'~rJf; '.,
. ,\ ( - ,
\, I
,\,t
J".
~1/'
1
I
if
..... Jf
:.:).. .i
.... ..)' I
..~ I
0,Yj
, ~'1
("? /
,
m
w
w~ Z
U llJ II)
~~~~ ~ <(
m~n::>
~ <(/,ClO::: ...J
W...L.Ll ~
~ ZO::cjCl.. c..
..:::coi~Ui 1)
:;; ~~~s~~
"
01 ~
w' ~Ow~~~ '"
to: ot.8~ 3;0 C!l W
~. ~~~~~~ ~ l-
Ll! w
" ~6~~~g ~
0'
Q ~~~~,~~ () (j)
,..
c:: ::lwC::;."':O '3
IiI~Clii:(L11-
" ':''900010 ~
'" ~~8~~:~
'" ~
0 0
'- (tc-[J.I-(t;CL '-
~ O~O~O:O 0
It::w;'i. X n:;:O:: x
'- 1l.;JJa.wc..-a. '-
"""" c. '-""I "
(f) 00 C1~ W (/) "
;~~~-; oj
m
w
F
,t<
LCw
l)ll..w
zD~
wOOD
i:l1l..-:-
~ oo-;~I
wow
~ "',,"
" OO~
~
~ ,..,..,
" ~~w
" '"~~
ww~
w uu.,
" OO~
~ <:!:<I:i-J
,.,.0
W ~~~
b
0 WwD
>- 22f=
gi "''''.,
DO"
'" 000
z: zzz
j:: FF;::
"" ~~~
x xx,
w wWuJ
o
:::
.c
.-
J:.
X
UJ
Z: ~ 'l^J\! WBZ: f ~ 600G'ILIB
z
0
0,,1.,1 . !Voo f= .:;
lau'pU!W@SOlJe~ I I u 0> I
SO"'ON lOl X\ll \lVH 3~6S 'ON d\ii\l S.l:lOSS3SSIi :) llJ D (/)
G?l ij ~ ~el G,~6'GSS'lP~ GO~B'~~9' ,t>9 ct: '" I .. 0 c-
02916 u058JO puelUsli' laaJlS \ig.~ OZ916 )jO ON\llHSII I- 00 l-:::; I- llJ
C< ~ ~ t) ~U ..0> llJ
; ~ ~: ~ is 311NV<lO 1,,9 Cf) we;> o.J W :J:
Z 0 wW '"
~\:INSntJ NOlJ '111ll311li8NIZ \tSIl l-,," ~a:: W T""
~ ':l Zv D 1 J 3 1 I H J (;J \I a .0:0
.. 5 OpB~pa SO{lBJ u z 0- 0", I <t:
~~ ~I-:' '?[J) 0:) ~0
38N30lS3CJ lN3V\J3:)'v'ld3C1 0:: ~I- Z (J) "-
.5'0]~ . S'\'t- 31\10 NOlldliJ:JS30 0 0
lL Ll N
I-
a
z
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-i-
I
~,<:.....z
Zi Z
0 0
w
I- "
c? I-
<( Ij
~ <(
> "
~ >
W z
'- W
8
-l u
z ...J
W J
) W
I'
w I t I
0 I- ~g-.:r
~
0 I-
~ ::J 0::
" 0
~ 0
z
" (j)
0
w Z
z
I T
I ..'
.~ .O";;.t r .S.H
I
.g-.v~
.....__u_____
J)-,S<
.C:-,9:::
---l Z
0
Z l-
I 0 <(
--1-' >
I
I I- W
J <( w ...J
0
I > c?
I 0 W
I W ~
1/ "
..J ~ l-
f/ z
,-
r..--- w il U)
w
~j <(
I- W
if)
W
S -'-oc
I
..~,."'. l.J..l
.I)-,SC: ~
.-
.0
.-
.t:
X
UJ
z:, 'l"Id O€: ~€:9 600llP19
0SG\ ' J\tO-9
c?g g%.:
Q:" ~ ~ 0
< IJl O~
D Cl O"<i" u....
~ 3 ~.." a 1 :) 3 1 I H 8 CJ 'if
0jJ'} \$' OPE~PQ SOllEJ
CJ31j , s
'--(dI;
~11~,
#, I"~I J
"(rot
10U'pUIUJ@50IJ~~
xeJ '>S6'1:S5'>vS <:OS6'ZSS',rS
OZ9l6 uo5aJO pU~14>\I' )aaJrS If 91'9
I
90~ f'ON lOl X'il \!\Ill 3,6[: 'ON d'if"J S,lJOSS3SS'i
-".._----~_.__..._~
OZ916 ~O ONVlHS'i
lS 31lNlfd8 Hg
WNSn>l NOl-I 'iI rIl3lJV()NIZ VSIl
z
o
f=
II
1~ g
PJI
Iii.
V4't.:i '
IJ
i:i 0>
w 01
~
00 m f::::i I-
'i!u wO 0--' W
0 I--K wW
0:0 '0:: W
z o ' 0<( I
$(1) co 0:(9 (J)
&1- ""z
0 N
o~
. ill
ill
I
U)
~ I
3JN30lS3tf lN3li\J3J'v'ld3tl
't"'""
(f)
<(
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\,
:.n\
~\
'\
\
, \
\
)
("-"J
..
..
\
,I
,
\ r-\~..., ".'
j \ '.
\.......
". "..,"'\. ..
I .~ \,\.\'
I ,_,' .. 'I; ~: " \.' ,
\ ' . \.
l \ \H '!, '
~L; ~~:r~~~\ "(~,~f '
7"';\\T':'~:: i/'Co') \0 ",;';" \)~hY"~\\ ,\
- - ~ -' ,: ~ r"~ - ~ ~ \: !r'i:9~~::'- r \
\vk f\-r-~~-:':~- -/};1-\
, I '\ \ r j ~ ~ /: ~":I \
~.- ,,';>r --\ ~ ~ tii / L /H I , _ J" ,;::V
"'~1 :'t<"" : \ ,.. ~ ~~ ~r " I ~ j: ' I \ (" V'..,
0' ,;'\')';;';~'.'.'''\i2 I .,\'./,.00..... ;-;>--1-",- ~~ ~~ I \ l' i". :~,'.,"',
(\j ! ,. I, h \,,' '~'.bc. ~ou, N I 0 I ~~ \ , .
". ":1,i:~~~\;, L~y . f~==~~Y ~o!i Ii ~W' - \ '! " ' il:>'
~\ 1\", -) \ I~' '~II' , I ^ Z ~ ~ "" II ~ I I .. ,-.i ~
~t\t\~}ti~:" ~':- \-w~~~J..,~-}~ ;,:(il"t; ,j I ,,'r',' /,i' ~
~, ","~~, I JI --7 -'I~\-D/' I 's'
1 ,tI d--7-__ \, r---------+',~,' I""; 0 t;~~it:;,!~
, J . ,\- ~11 ~/ - -~14~\ ," 'kJ' ',;,i"(I'r':,/~',/ ~~ ~;~,~
I 1 80 ' '" I II I' '[ \ Y
/:"",,~!, l~:\,~",\ Iii \\ /' a -l~' , {:/ "/i" ,'i~,
d \:", " C~i1' ~.'Wi:'-I" i ! ;;J' i,'"
~ 17o~,;<:' "\ I '~ ,~k ,,\ / ~~11'/ \,;, ,:,,['7'
" '~",.l ; " '" ~ I 'JJ 'J ,,~III : / ' """',i,,,""',
~". I '. " / \' l.. I I~ / r )1 ,'",:-:"1\,: K I f~ " ,: I '::;
'~,; 'kl\'< <-~ If 1,7 .,~--J-,~.J"L ~' J.Ui! ,I,' Iii' ,
"," I' ., ,----!...-.- ',__ 'j_."J-,J/.. :/ ' ;
,'" ' /":'~'I'1\ 'r \ ;'~,'K" ',',
" .""\ I l!::J~..::.l-- 1,\ \~~' .~/t{.-;.~ ,.' ~'f--"'. :'
'r' ,--~ "~I' < "..~\/~ if~;..-.- ,;"::,/>,',, r)' ";:~'i
,e / tl',,' \ i I, ~~ II ' ~\~/,:/ ',1..,
': \- l "J~ ',\ '1'1 \7,,1
\~, -':~~\~!\ 11:!:1 ': ',,~it\'
~ /' \'~ I
, 1 ',--1;, \''j, I" ," ,,' ;
\, r /' ' ':':~I-!~\~ if
\",;..";,,,~jl Ii , I'
\~~ I,i
/ ~\":JiX.''>1J,\" !' "I
/r-...r;:--""O""j
:Ff[,' ; f))
': ;-~ i': /1
;?,;), .,' I '
II;j ,.'
(~~/
I
,
\
~I
t;l
\ '-
4
/~
W
",
/
\
\,
,
i~1a
I z\y
,
)
Ib
I~
'Ii
". (
...:>
I:
,,-
""~
tL
~
~
~
'1'-- ~>
"':, t
::'1.
~..... \l~
,'~~i"
W~~
Il::~~
~f.:;:!:
~s~
o~;
f- Zf-tt
llJ ::s 0
UJ 0 .0:
~ 0 ~
;jJ ~~ ~
LlJ >r-.. w
t ~~~
~ 5~..J
a: .. CO? UJ
C9 llJ" ()
;! 6~~
'0 N:;; a..
~;>
Z "
~"<~
<t '"
."
...J :.7,-
Q. ~'4lI~
, ,
ill ',,-::'
I- ''i;
"'-.' J~
(f) I," .,
\;
t
...,\
\1
1
I
~I
11
",II
"
I
\
\
I
\
\
;.:: ~ 'l'\JV WBc: ~ ~ 6aOZILJ8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 2: Pt 1. Commissions Committees and Boards
Meeting Date: October 6, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
Department: Legal E-Mail: appicelr@ashland,oLus
Secondary Dept.: City Recorder Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Question:
Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Council Rules Chapter 2,04,090,
2,04,100 and 2,04,110 to add Council Rules relating to commissions and liaisons, and move the
ordinance on to Second Reading?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the First Reading of this ordinance,
Background:
In 2006 and 2007 the Council Rules Committee worked on Council rules concerning how the Council
and Mayor act in relationship to appointed commissions, committees and boards, These rules concern
matters such as the appointment and removal of members of regular boards as well as ad hoc entities,
like task forces, The Council Rules Committee also worked on rules concerning the role and duties of
the Council liaison, The attached ordinance [Part 1] is an expansion of the 5/29/07 draft created by the
Council Rules Committee only as it concerns the relationship of the Mayor and Council to the
Commissions, e,g, appointment, removal, and roles of the liaison, [See attached 5/29/07 draft
specifically numbered paragraphs 9 Commissions and 11 Liaisons which corresponds with the outline
presently in AMC 2.04.090 and AMC 2.04.110.] Another ordinance [Part 2] concerns establishment of
uniform policies and operating procedures for all commissions, committees and boards, [See attached
5/29/07 draft specifically numbered paragraph 10 regarding Uniform Rules which corresponds with
the outline presently in AMC 2.04.100,]
These ordinances [Part I and Part II] present some policy issues for the Council.
1. Power of Liaisons,
All Council liaisons shall be: (choose one)
a, A voting member of the advisory commission, committee or board; or
b, A non-voting ex officio member of the advisory commission, committee or board; or
c, A non-member Liaison to the advisory commission, committee or board,
All advisory commissions need to be treated the same, The only exceptions concern bodies created
under state laws and the Municipal Audit Committee, City Administration asked that this ordinance
reflect that no Councilor or Mayor be a voting member of an advisory body, This change is included
in this Part I ordinance and Part II, The Forest Lands Commission, Transportation Commission,
Conservation Commission, Historic Commission, Airport Commission, and Tree Commission still
Page 1 0[3
~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
have non-voting ex officio Council members, Other Boards and Commissions have only the default
non-member Council Liaison, [Part I - 2,04,100,A,] It is recommended that this be made uniform -i,e,
all ex-officio non-voting Council liaison members or all non-member Council liaisons, The major
difference is that ex-officio officers are members and thus can participate as a member (e,g, call a point
of order) whereas non-member liaisons simply observe and periodically report at the discretion of the
chair. This choice depends upon how strongly the Council feels Liaisons should not interfere with the
debate, If you choose all non-member liaisons the Forest Lands Commission, Transportation
Commission, Conservation Commission, Historic Commission, Airport Commission, and Tree
Commission provision in Part II will be amended accordingly, If you choose all non-voting ex officio
member Liaisons, the remainder of the Commissions will be amended,
2, Term Limits,
Part II [2,10,020] creates term limits for advisory body members, Currently the ordinance sets 3 year
terms as standard (Planning Commission 4 years), No member may serve more than five terms on a
single commission, (15 years and 20 years for PC), The Council should consider whether this is a real
limitation (earlier drafts proposed three terms - 9 years), Also there appears to be no statutory reason
why the Planning Commission needs to be 4 years, AN exception to term limits was added based on
comments received to allow a unanimous council to override the limit.
3, Removal.
This ordinance has provision for removal. [Part I - 2,04,090,F]. The removal of an appointed officer is
written as being authorized with or without cause, Only a simple majority of the Council is required,
The only exception is for Planning Commissioners, based on a specific state law [ORS 227,030] which
requires a hearing and a finding of misconduct or non-performance, Accordingly, while the Mayor and
Council may be inclined to remove a Planning Commissioner, the statutes require a public hearing and
a finding of cause, The ordinance requires these Planning Commission specific hearings be made non-
political thus the delegation to the Administrator under AMC 2,30, To give the Council greater
flexibility, the Code was written such that there is no requirement to have a hearing or find cause for
all other commissions, The Council should consider if this hearing and cause requirement should be
expanded,
4, Roberts Rules,
Part II [2,10,075] specifies that Roberts Rules shall be followed but failure to follow the rules is not
fatal.
2,10,075, Robert' s Rules of Order. Roberts Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all
meetings of advisory commissions, committees and boards, when not in conflict with the
Ashland City Charter and the Ashland Municipal Code, Failure to strictly follow Roberts
Rules of Order shall not be cause to void or otherwise disturb a decision or action, The body
will strive to be clear in its proceedings,
The existing Municipal Code states the following for Roberts Rules as regards Council actions:
Page 2 0[3
~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2,04,020 H, Robert's Rules of Order.
Robert's Rules of Order shall be the authority for the government of the Council during its
sessions, when not in conflict with the City Charter and these code rules, Failure to strictly
follow Robert's Rules of Order shall not be cause to void or otherwise disturb a decision or
action of the Council. The Council will strive to be clear in its proceedings,
These provisions are nearly identical. Does the Council wish to modify one or both of them to be more
clear or to facilitate more informality,
5, Chair Participation,
Roberts Rules provides that on large Commissions the Chair should not make motions, There is no
formal break, but on smaller boards the Chair is permitted to make motions, Does the Council wish to
specify that the Chair: (a) can always make motions and participate regardless of the Commission; (b)
may make motions and participate only on commissions of _ size?
6, Progression from Vice Chair to Chair.
Apparently some Commissions have a history of always moving the Vice Chair to the Chair position
after a year of vice chair service and apprenticeship, Does the Council wish to codity and unify this
practice for all commissions and boards,
Related City Policies:
Ashland City Charter Article X, Ordinance Adoption Procedures
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for October 20,2009,
(2) Postpone First Reading to a date certain,
Potential Motions:
Staff: Conduct First Reading:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2,04,090,
2,04,100 AND 2,04,110 RELATING TO COUNCIL RULES
Council:
2009,
Move to approve First Reading of the ordinance and set second reading for October 20,
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
5/29/07 draft
Page 30[3
~.,