HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-10 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
NOVEMBER 10, 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. October 13, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-01151
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 545-555-565 Clover Lane
APPLICANT: Clover Lane LLC/Holiday Inn Express
DESCRIPTION: A request for a zoning map amendment to extend the "Freeway Sign Zone/Freeway
Overlay District" from its current 700-foot radius to include two additional properties along the west
side of Clover Lane. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 14 AA; TAX LOT: 3200,6700 & 6800
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. 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
OCTOBER 13, 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.
Tom Dimitre
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the City Council has asked for an update on the Planning Commission's
discussion of the tolling and extension ordinances. He stated this update is currently scheduled for the October 20th City
Council Meeting.
Commissioner Marsh reminded the group of their Annual Retreat scheduled for October 31st, and stated there is still time to
submit agenda ideas.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. September 15,2009 Planning Commission Minutes
2. September 29, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES (Commissioners Dimitre
and Miller abstained). Motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #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) 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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland Residential; ZONING: WR; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #: 391E 17AA; TAX LOT: 1105.
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller, Dotterrer, and Dawkins declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported by any of the
commissioners.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and clarified this planning application is required to come before
the Planning Commission because it involves a conditional use permit for a new structure. Mr. Severson reviewed the property
location and stated it is on the west side of Granite Street between Ashland Creek Dr. and Lantern Hill and is zoned Woodland
Residential, which has a minimum lot size of 2-acres and an allowed lot coverage of 7%. He stated the existing lot is much
smaller than the 2-acre minimum and is only .61 acres in size, and roughly 1,695 sq. ft. of the property (or 90% of the allowed
lot coverage) is occupied by a shared driveway that serves seven properties. Mr. Severson explained the proposal before the
Commission is to demolish the existing home due to mold infestation (a demolition permit has already been approved by the
Building Division) and to construct a new home. Mr. Severson clarified while the new home will have a larger footprint than the
current structure, because the proposal includes removing the shed and reducing the area of the existing driveway, patio and
sidewalk, the overall lot coverage is reduced by 23 sq. ft.
Mr. Severson noted the Applicant's have provided some conceptual building elevations which are fairly contemporary;
however staff does not believe this is out of character with the surroundings. He clarified staff is recommending approval of the
application with the noted conditions, and clarified there were no recommendations from the Tree Commission.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox/Applicant's Representative and Carlos Delgado/Project Architect came forward and addressed the
Commission. Mr. Knox explained the current structure is proposed for removal because it has a sever amount of poisonous
mold, and the reports obtained by the property owner clearly indicate this issue. He commented on the site and clarified this
lot was created prior to the adoption of the Woodland Residential Zone and this is a classic case where the lot is too small for
the zoning designation. He stated this is a simple case and they have worked hard to create a proposal that lessens the
impact and reduces the lot coverage of the site. He stated a good portion of the new house will be located on the existing
driveway and impervious surface areas and noted the substandard size of the lot makes it difficult to put any kind of house
here without going through the City's conditional use process.
Mr. Delgado commented briefly on the conceptual design of the proposed house and stated they had to really work around the
site considerations to lessen the lot coverage.
Commissioner Miller expressed her concern about architectural compatibility. Mr. Knox clarified in this area the housing style
is a mixed bag and if you go up into that area you will find houses that are contemporary.
Public Testimonv
No one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing and the record at 7:23 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Rinaldi asked if staff would follow up and make sure the final building design is compatible with the
neighborhood. Mr. Severson clarified staff will review the building plans for consistency with what has been proposed and will
look for changes that might significantly alter the plan in how it relates to neighboring properties.
Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to approve Planning Action #2009-01051 and approve the Findings (omitting
Condition #3 as requested by staff). Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Morris, Mindlin, Miller, Rinaldi, Dawkins, Dimitre,
Dotterrer, Blake and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 9-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Comments on Proposed Council Rules Ordinance and Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures Ordinance.
Council Liaison Eric Navickas explained the Council has begun discussing this issue, but have not yet made a final decision
on the two proposed ordinances.
Council Rules Ordinance
The Commissioners shared their opinions on whether the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission should be an ex officio
member or a non-member. Mr. Molnar clarified non-members cannot participate in the meeting, while ex officio members are
generally allowed to sit and the table and participate in discussions, but not vote. Comment was made that in the past they
have had liaisons that participated too energetically and at times their opinions influenced the Commission's decisions. Marsh
noted the proposed language in Section 2.01.100.C which states "under no circumstance is a liaison to a City advisory body to
attempt to direct debate, lobby or otherwise influence the direction or decisions of the body," and stated whatever you call the
position this section addresses those concerns. Navickas commented that the Planning Commission and the City Council
have a dual relationship and there are times where he believes it is appropriate for the liaison to speak up and provide
guidance. He cited a recent discussion on the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan as an example where he interjected when he
felt the Commission was straying from what the Council had asked them to do. Opinion was given that classifying the liaison
as an ex officio member and allowing this person to sit at the table tends to influence their decisions. Comment was made that
the liaison should not be allowed to provide comment except in those circumstances where the Commission is getting off track
from the Council's direction.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the direction he was given following the City Council's initial discussion. He
noted their desire to make sure no councilor is using their position as a liaison to try to move the debate in a direction contrary
to what the full Council wants. The Council also requested staff clarify that for the Planning Commission, the liaison will be an
ex officio member of the body except for quasi-judicial matters.
Commissioner Mindlin noted that there seems to be differing opinions amongst the group as to whether the liaison should be
an ex officio member. Mr. Appicello stated the Council consensus was for all Council Liaisons to be ex officio members,
except on the Planning Commission where the liaison would not be an ex officio member during quasi-judicial matters.
General support was voiced for this clarification.
Commissioner Marsh noted the language in Section 2.04.100.G which states "Each advisory body should be invited to give a
short annual presentation to the Council" and stated she would like to take advantage of this provision and schedule a joint
session with the City Council. Comment was made questioning ifthe language should read "shall" instead of "should". The
Commission voiced agreement that they should meet with the Council at least annually.
Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures Ordinance
Commissioner Marsh reviewed the following Ordinance sections that would impact the current procedures of the Planning
Commission: 1) The election of officers would be changed to the first meeting of the year, 2) Chairs and Vice Chairs could not
serve as officers for more than two years, and 3) Commissioner terms would be limited to 5 terms (20 years). Mr. Appicello
clarified the restriction on term limits may be removed from the final ordinance and instead it would include softer language
that the Mayor should give preference to new qualified individuals. Comment was made voicing opposition to the term limit
provision since this does not seem to be a problem on the City's commissions and committees.
Comment was made questioning why the chair and vice chair would be selected in January, when new members aren't
appointed until the end of April. Commissioner Dawkins noted they have had this discussion before and the Planning
Commission decided it was better to have the new members on board before they elect their officers. Marsh agreed that the
selection of the chairs should happen after the new members are appointed.
Mr. Molnar asked if the Commission had any input on the provision that limits the chair and vice chair to two years. Comment
was made questioning why this needs to be in the ordinance and indicating the commission should be allowed to decide.
Additional comment was made that if you have a really good chair, why shouldn't they be allowed to remain in that position;
and that commissions should be allowed to govern their own proceedings to a certain extent.
Mr. Appicello provided some clarification on why the Council is proposing these two ordinances and the benefits of having
some standardization.
Councilor Navickas questioned where the Commission would prefer him to sit during quasi-judicial hearings. Mr. Appicello
clarified if the liaison is a non-member during these types of proceedings, it is probably appropriate for the liaison not to sit at
the table. He stated the main question is whether the liaison should leave the room in order to avoid the possibility of non-
verbal communication. Several commissioners voiced their opinion for the liaison to not be in the Council Chambers during
quasi-judicial hearings. Suggestion was made for the Chair to announce why the Council Liaison is leaving the room when
these situations occur.
B. Croman Mill District Plan
Commissioner Marsh clarified they will be continuing their discussions of the Outline of Issues document from the September
29th meeting and asked Councilor Navickas to comment on how they are doing with communicating with the Council. Navickas
encouraged the Commission to schedule an update with the Council in the near future, and explained the time for liaisons to
give updates to the entire Council comes at the very end of their meetings and they often run out of time before this occurs.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar suggested they schedule a Study Session with the Council before the Planning
Commission holds its public hearing. Navickas and the Planning Commissioners voiced their support for this suggestion.
Request was made for a representative of the Croman Advisory Committee to also be invited to attend the Study Session.
Transportation Issues
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman noted that some members have raised concerns regarding the alignment of Tolman Creek
Road and the new central boulevard. He explained the idea is the for majority of traffic to be directed to the Croman site, and
those who want to continue down Tolman Creek Rd would have to make a right hand turn to connect back onto Tolman
Creek. Mr. Molnar commented since this alignment would happen at a future phase, and is contingent on a lot of things
happening (including the exchange with ODOT), he suggested they may want to wait on making a final decision on this
element of the plan. He added the City is in the process of updating its Transportation System Plan and it may be beneficial to
wait until this plan is complete before they make a decision since the TSP will likely address this area and may propose
suggestions for how this area should be addressed.
Commissioner Miller suggested they create two lanes going south toward Siskiyou Blvd; the left lane could go into the Croman
site and the right lane could continue along Tolman Creek Rd to the residential areas. She questioned how long it will take for
the Croman site to generate a lot of traffic and until that buildup occurs she supports a left hand turn off Tolman Creek Rd. into
the Croman site. Dotterrer noted the concept was to direct the arterial traffic to the new boulevard and turn Tolman Creek Rd.,
which passes right by an elementary school, back into a residential street. Miller commented that the proposed layout seems
awkward. Dimitre gave his opinion that it is doubtful the new street will become a new boulevard and he believes people will
continue to use Tolman Creek Rd.
Mr. Goldman noted that Tolman Creek Rd. is part of the bus loop, and once a certain amount of buildup occurs on the Croman
site, they may want to move the bus stops to the main boulevard. He noted there are pedestrian crossings included in the plan
that would enable people to get from the residential neighborhood to the new bus routes. Comment was made that taking the
bus service away from a dense residential area and diverting it to the Croman site might be a mistake. Additional comment
was made that people use the bus throughout the day in the residential areas, while at the Croman site it may only be utilized
in the morning and evening when people and coming and leaving work.
Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the possibility of a future connection from Washington Street over to Tolman Creek Road
that is identified in the Interchange Area Management Plan (lAMP). He clarified this may come up as part of the TSP update,
but any future connection would not pass through the Croman site. Mindlin stated she is worried about displacing uses from
the Croman site over to Washington Street and is concerned with this areas access issues. Mr. Molnar explained Washington
St. is an existing problem and ODOT is aware that this is part of the TSP update and that changes will need to occur. He
noted there were some discussions to vent both areas by crossing the railroad tracks with a roadway, but the grade issues
and costs involved created limitations to this option. Marsh stated it is important for them to look at pedestrian and bicycle
access on both sides of the tracks so that people can move from one side to the other. Mr. Molnar voiced his support for
tracking the land use proposals for the Washington Street area and providing this type of input during the TSP process.
Commissioner Dotterrer voiced his support for postponing a decision on the future alignment of Tolman Creek Rd. He stated
the Commission should come to an agreement on the idea of a central boulevard and leave the issue of the future alignment
to the Transportation Commission. Marsh voiced her opinion that they do not need to decide how this intersection will work at
the master planning level. Rinaldi suggested if they want to leave this intersection to be determined, it should be more generic
in the plan and not specified as it is currently. The Commission reached general consensus on the central boulevard concept.
Mr. Molnar suggested they consider adding wording to the Design Standards that acknowledges the master plan concept for
the central boulevard, but notes this is a future phase and the details will need to be evaluated at a later date. Support was
voiced for injecting some ambiguity into the Design Standards language.
Commissioner Rinaldi questioned if they are getting too precise with the grid layout in terms of the minor streets and access
ways, and whether this would limit the size and variety of the parcels. He stated buyers may have concerns with this and he
suggested they dash the streets in order to show them as being more conceptual. Mr. Molnar stated the local streets and the
central boulevard are fairly set, but there could be opportunity to consider other options for the access ways, such as a multi-
use path system.
Commissioner Blake expressed concern with the proposed active zones that require building fagades to be within 25 ft. of the
property line and how this would affect solar access. Mr. Molnar clarified staff has starting working on possible adjustments to
the street configuration to more of an east-west layout and can bring this forward if the Commission is interested in exploring
different options. Commissioner Marsh indicated the Commission's support for staff to research alternate options to the street
configuration.
Land Use Mix
Mr. Molnar provided an introduction to the matrix and briefly reviewed the difference between special permitted uses and
conditional uses. The Commission reviewed the matrix and the uses that are outlined.
Residential Uses
Mr. Goldman clarified a definition will need to be added for short term employee housing, but this definition will likely indicate
the unit could only be occupied by someone employed by the permitted use on site. He added this type of housing would
typically be an apartment located within an office building. Dotterrer voiced his support for this concept, but requested staff
make sure the definition is consistent with the concept. Dimitre commented that he is not in favor of the short term employee
housing idea and stated he would like this reworked to support more affordable housing. Mr. Molnar clarified under State law,
the City cannot mandate affordable housing and can only provide incentives. Councilor Navickas suggested re-zoning the
existing industrial as mixed-use employment as a means to get an additional amount of housing. Miller voiced her support for
the Croman site to be primarily employment, with the opportunity for mixed-use near the other residential areas along the
creek. Dimitre commented on the need to provide adequate housing on the site and suggested residential use be permitted
without being in conjunction with commercial. Comment was made suggesting the proposed neighborhood center be used for
high density housing. Mr. Goldman clarified in the neighborhood center, 100% of the second or third story could be residential,
but 100% of the ground floor needs to be commercial. Comment was made that the whole idea behind this plan was to create
employment and industrial opportunities and what has been presented is a nice compromise. Several opinions were given on
whether high density housing should be permitted in the neighborhood center, and Marsh clarified it does not appear they
have a consensus on this issue. She added they will reach a point in the process where they will need to vote on these items
and they may want to consider including minority reports along with the package that goes before the City Council.
Commercial Uses
Mr. Molnar suggested 1,500 sq. ft. be the maximum square footage for stores, restaurants and shops in the Office
Employment and Compatible Industrial areas and asked for the Commission's feedback. Mindlin voiced her support for
allowing stores and restaurants in these areas and stated she would even support it being more flexible. Dotterrer agreed and
stated most office areas have places on the ground floor where employees can get a sandwich or a quick bite to eat. Several
other comments were made voicing support for this provision.
Commissioner Marsh questioned the child/daycare center and fitness club provision and whether these would be open to the
general public. She asked why they would allow the general public to visit the restaurants, but not allow them to use the
daycare facilities. Mindlin agreed with Marsh and stated this feels exclusionary to not allow businesses to provide services to
the general public. Mr. Goldman clarified the way it is currently drafted, a Gold's Gym or a daycare center open to the general
public could only be located in the neighborhood center. For businesses located in the Office Employment or Compatible
Industrial area, you can only provide this use if it is for your employees. Comment was made questioning what would happen
if a business wants to offer a daycare service to its employees, but due to a limited number of children, they need to open it up
to the public in order to make it viable. Mr. Goldman clarified the language currently states "services generally intended to
support", so there may be some allowance for this type of situation.
Industrial Uses
Mr. Goldman clarified he has made a note to insert a line for "Retail in conjunction with a manufactured use of less than 600 ft"
to be permitted outright in the Compatible Industrial zone. Dimitre suggested the "manufacture or assembly contiguous to a
retail outlet" be removed from the Neighborhood Center and stated he does not believe this is an appropriate use in that zone.
Mindlin commented on the provision for "warehouse and similar storage facilities in conjunction with permitted use and
enclosed in building" and recommended they allow for storage outside of buildings. Several commissioners voiced support for
storage outside of buildings to be a conditional use so that appropriate screening could be required.
Public & Institutional Uses
Comment was made voicing concern with not allowing private schools (adult education) as a permitted use. Mr. Goldman
noted there are employee targets they are trying to hit and based on floor area, schools typically don't have a high number of
employees. Dotterrer questioned why there are different standards for public service and community buildings with and stated
whatever they decide for private use, they should allow the same for public use.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Apri/ Lucas, Administrative Assistant
TYPE III
PUBLIC HEARINGS
r.,
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us m: 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTIONS: 2009-01151
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 545-555-565 Clover Lane
APPLICANT: Clover Lane LLC/Holiday Inn Express
DESCRIPTION: A request for a zoning map amendment to extend the "Freeway Sign Zone/Freeway Overlay District" from its
current 700-foot radius to include two additional properties along the west side of Clover Lane.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 14 AA; TAX LOT: 3200,6600
& 6700
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 (TJY phone number 1-800-135-2900). 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 auestions or comments concernina this reauest olease feel free to contact the Ashland Plannina Division. 541-488-5305.
G:\comm-dev\plannmglNotIces Mailed\2009\2009.0 1151_ CORRECTED TAX LOT NUMBER.doc
ZONING CHANGE. TYPE III PROCEDURE
18.1 08.060.A & B Approval Criteria
A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure:
1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments.
2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments.
3. Annexations.
4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions.
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of
this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensiye plan and the application demonstrates that:
a. The change implements a public need, other than the proYision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensiye Plan; or
b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to
adjust to the changed circumstances; or
c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or
d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide one of
the following:
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for deyelopment is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c)) affordable housing deyeloper or
comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 aboye. The land shall be located within the project
and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to
the affordable housing deyeloper or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project; or
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (Le. Residential Overlay),
will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensiye Plan, and will proYide
one of the following:
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c)) affordable housing deyeloper or
comparable Deyelopment Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 aboye. The land shall be located within the project
and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for dedication. Ownership of the land and/or air space shall
be transferred to the affordable housing deyeloper or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project.
The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole
unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60
years.
Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions.
G:lcomm.devlplanninglNotices MailedI200912009-0 1151_ CORRECTED TAX LOT NUMBER. doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
November 10,2009
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-2009-01151
APPLICANT:
Clover Lane LLC
Holiday Inn Express
LOCATION:
545-555-565 Clover Lane
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Employment
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
October 2, 2009
120-DAY TIME LIMIT:
January 30,2010
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.40
18.96
18.96.100
18.108.060
E-1 Employment District
Sign Regulations
Freeway Sign Zone
Type III Procedures
REQUEST: A request for a zoning map amendment to extend the "Freeway Sign Zone/Freeway
Overlay District" from its current 700-foot radius to include two additional properties along the west
side of Clover Lane.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
General
In July of 1997, Planning Action #97-064 granted approval of a Lot Line Adjustment and
Minor Land Partition to divide 5.84 acres, involving four then-existing tax lots, into five tax
lots including the three subject properties here. A partial realignment and vacation of Clover
Lane was also proposed at this time. The proposed realignment of Clover Lane was intended
to better relate to the alignment of the Interstate 5 right-of-way, and the associated
reconfiguration of these parcels made them better suited for commercial development. (See
Staff Exhibit S-2.)
In March of 1982, Ordinance #2176 was adopted amending Ashland's Sign Ordinance
(AMC 18.96) in its entirety. This amendment brought the Freeway Sign Zone regulations
generally to their current form - prior to this time freeway signage had been allowed up to 60
feet above the base elevation of Highway 66 at its intersection with Interstate 5 and up to 300
square feet in area, and with this amendment the allowed height was reduced to 30 feet above
the base elevation and the allowed area reduced to 100 square feet. The 700-foot radius
Freeway Sign Zone has been in place in the Land Use Ordinance at least as far back as
Ordinance #1798 adopted in November of 1973.
Planning Action PA # 2009-01151
Applicant: Clover Lane LLC
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 1 of 6
For 545 & 555 Clover Lane (Mi!!uel's Restaurant & Associated Parkin!!)
In October of 200 1, Planning Action #2001-104 granted approval of a Modification of the
Site Review approval for a previously approved Denny's Restaurant to add additional
parking.
In November of 1999, Planning Action #99-132 granted approval of a Lot Line Adjustment
between the two lots.
In April of 1999, Planning Action #99-052 granted Site Review approval to allow the
construction of a new "Denny's Classic Diner" restaurant. This action also included
approval ofa Land Partition to divide the parcel into two lots, one of which was to contain
the restaurant at 545 Clover Lane and the other at 555 Clover Lane which was to contain nine
leased parking spaces serving the adjacent restaurant while retaining the potential to further
develop.
For 565 Clover Lane. now the Holiday Inn Express
In January of2006, Planning Action #2005-01527 granted Site Review approval to allow the
installation of wireless communication facilities, including a cupola on the roof of the
existing Holiday Inn Express building with antennas mounted on the inside, and a
telecommunications equipment shelter adjacent to the parking lot. In keeping with
applicable site design standards and the Sign Ordinance, this approval was conditioned to
limit signage to only that allowed for wireless communications facilities in AMC
18.72.180.C ("a maximum of two non-illuminated signs with a maximum of two squarefeet
each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number") and to prohibit
the installation of signage for the hotel/motel use on the rooftop wireless communications
facility installation.
In February of 2000, Planning Action #2000-023 granted a one-year extension to the
previously approved Site Review and Conditional Use Permit for a 65-unit, three-story
motel.
In November of 1998, Planning Action #98-100 granted Site Review and Conditional Use
Permit approval to allow the construction of a 65-unit, three-story motel at 565 Clover Lane.
There are no other planning actions of record for these sites.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The subject properties are located on the west side of Clover Lane, south of its intersection
with Highway 66, east of the Interstate 5 right-of-way and just north ofthe current terminus
of Clover Lane. Tax Lot #3200 is addressed as 545 Clover Lane and currently contains
Miguel's Restaurant. This parcel is irregularly shaped and approximately 0.50 acres in area.
Tax Lot #6600 is addressed as 555 Clover Lane and is vacant but for the parking and parking
lot landscaping associated with Miguel's Restaurant. This parcel is generally rectangular in
shape and is approximately 0.39 acres in area. Tax Lot #6700 is addressed as 565 Clover
Lane and currently contains the Holiday Inn Express. This parcel is irregularly shaped and is
approximately 1.41 acres in area. (See Staff Exhibit S-3).
Planning Action PA # 2009-01151
Applicant: Clover Lane LLC
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 2 of 6
All three of these parcels are zoned Employment (E-1). The existing Freeway Overlay
District, also known as the Freeway Sign Zone, takes the form of a circle with a 700-foot
radius centered on the freeway interchange at Exit 14 (See Staff Exhibit 8-1). This special
overlay zone is intended to provide for and regulate certain ground signs which identify
businesses in commercial districts located at freeway interchanges. It allows for the
placement of larger and taller signs (i.e. "freeway signs") to provide greater visibility for
freeway-oriented businesses at the interchange; the signs allowed are up to 100 square feet in
area and may extend to a height of 2028 feet above mean sea level (where the existing
ground level on the subject properties varies from approximately 1994 to 2010 feet based on
city GIS data). Standard commercial ground signs are limited to no more than five feet in
height and no more than sixty feet in area. (NOTE: For C-l zoned properties within the
Freeway Overlay District, location within the Freeway Overlay District also conveys some
additional allowances for the installation of wireless communication facilities and for
automobile-oriented businesses. The subject properties are zoned E-l and as such the only
special allowances related to their inclusion within the overlay are those related to signage.)
As currently configured, the Freeway Sign Zone extends to cover the majority of the property
at 545 Clover Lane, which is currently Miguel's Restaurant. With the current proposal, the
overlay Freeway Sign Zone would be extended to include the remainder of the property at
545 Clover Lane, and two additional properties at 555 Clover Lane, currently vacant except
for a parking lot, and at 565 Clover Lane, currently the Holiday Inn Express.
II. Project Impact
The application includes a request for a zoning map amendment, a Type III procedure, to
extend the "Freeway Sign Zone/Freeway Overlay District" along the west side of Clover
Lane from its current 700-foot radius to include the remainder of the property at 545 Clover
Lane and two additional properties at 555 Clover Lane and 565 Clover Lane. The Planning
Commission has the authority to take such action as is necessary to make the amendments to
maps and zones without further action from the Council, unless the decision is appealed.
A. Zoning Map Amendment
The application submittal notes that the request is based on the Holiday Inn Express's need to
remain competitive in attracting customers from the Interstate 5 corridor. The application
notes a number of factors which make it difficult for travelers to find the Holiday Inn
Express, and which lead to their making the application. These include: 1) that Clover Lane
is very narrow for a commercial street, especially one close to the freeway and at the base of
the Siskiyou Mountains; 2) that Clover Lane has signs at its entrance which state "Dead End"
giving the impression that there are no businesses beyond the sign to patronize; 3) that
Clover Lane has a sharp curvature which limits visibility of businesses; and 4) the distance
between off-ramps on Interstate 5, which makes it unlikely that someone who misses the exit
will turn around and seek out the business. The application explains that inclusion in the
Freeway Sign Zone would allow the installation of a pole sign which would help to attract
customers unfamiliar with the area as the taller and larger sign provides increased visibility to
travelers who are unfamiliar with the area and travelling at freeway speeds. The application
Planning Action PA # 2009-01151
Applicant: Clover Lane LLC
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 3 of 6
also notes that the hop is to provide freeway signage directed to travelers without having an
adverse impact on residentially-zoned neighborhoods to the east.
The application is being made specifically based on approval criteria "b" which requires that, "A
substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan
designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. "
The submittal notes that the Freeway Sign Zone was originally established to assist in the
identification of commercial businesses near the interchange, and suggests that the proposal
responds to the development that has occurred since the adoption ofthe current freeway sign
regulations in 1982. In particular, the application discusses the fact that the southern end of
Clover Lane was extended and modified in the late 1990's to reconfigure the parcels in a
manner more conducive to commercial development in the Employment zone. With the
realignment of Clover Lane and the reconfiguration of parcels, five commercial buildings
were constructed on six parcels in less than six years. The application asserts that when this
level of development is considered in light ofthe narrow right-of-way, dead-end signage, and
the lack of visibility due to the road's curvature and trees there is a need to adjust the overlay
to reflect the substantial change in circumstances.
In addition to responding to requirement to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstance,
the application materials also contend that in attracting Interstate 5 travelers who pay local
transient occupancy and food and beverage taxes, these freeway-oriented businesses are
capturing much-needed revenue and helping to encourage tourism and tourism-related
development, economic development, and paying for open space and water quality
improvements.
In considering the application, staff believe that the vacation of the previous Clover Lane
right-of-way, the realignment of the street to a more parallel relationship with Interstate 5,
and reconfiguration of parcels to create lots more conducive to commercial development at
the end of Clover Lane can be found to be a "substantial change in circumstances...since the
existing zoning... was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed
circumstances." As illustrated in Staff Exhibits S-l and S-3, the existing Freeway Sign
Zone's 700-foot radius seems to roughly correspond to the lot configuration that was in place
prior to the reconfiguration of the parcels. The previous alignment of the Clover Lane right-
of-way extended directly south from Highway 66 to the Interstate 5 freeway right-of-way,
and resulted in a long triangular lot squeezed between the freeway and Clover Lane; the
northern part of this lot would've been near the existing site of Miguel ' s Restaurant, located
at the outer edge of the Freeway Sign Zone, and further commercial development to the south
would have been largely constrained by the narrowing lot configuration. With the
realignment of Clover Lane in the late 1990's and the reconfiguration of the lots in this area
to better accommodate commercial development, staff believe that the subject properties
were made more able to accommodate freeway-oriented businesses, and at the same time the
realignment to extend Clover Lane parallel to the freeway created some visibility issues for
businesses on these properties which can likely be best addressed through the extension of
the overlay as proposed.
Planning Action PA # 2009-01151lApplicant: Clover Lane LLC
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 4 of 6
It appears that the Freeway Overlay Zone was originally established with Ordinance 1798 in
late 1973, and while the underlying reasons for creation ofthe overlay are not entirely clear,
staff have noted that in early drafts ofthe ordinance in 1973, the Freeway Sign Zone was set
aside as the only area in Ashland where signs could be erected which were primarily visible
only from the freeway. The ordinance adopted ultimately also included explicit prohibitions
on billboards advertising off-premise businesses aswell. It seems that the overlay has long
been used as a means to balance the signage needs of businesses near the freeway with limits
on the aesthetic impacts of freeway signage to the rest of the community.
In keeping with this history, staffbelieve that the potential aesthetic impacts of this proposed
extension of the Freeway Sign Zone must also be fully considered, including potential
impacts to the single family residential neighborhood located east of Clover Lane. As noted
in the applicants' submittal, the subject properties are separated from this residential
neighborhood to the east by the buildings themselves and the buildings built along the east
side of Clover Lane, by topography which drops between 14 and 28 feet between the subject
properties and the nearest residences, and by a physical separation of more than 200 feet. In
addition, staff believe it is important to note that 545 Clover Lane (Miguel's) already has a
freeway sign in place, so the real and immediate effect of the proposal would be to allow a
freeway sign for the Holiday Inn Express at 565 Clover Lane and for whatever building is
ultimately constructed at 555 Clover Lane, the partially-vacant parcel between Miguel's
Restaurant and the Holiday Inn Express, in the future. Topography here is such that the
farther one goes from the center ofthe interchange, the higher the ground level is relative to
the centerline of Highway 66, and as such signs allowed within this proposed extension of
the Freeway Sign Zone would have to be proportionally shorter as they get farther from the
interchange (and nearer to the residential neighborhoods) to comply with the height
limitation of2,028 feet above mean sea level. This limitation means that the top of a freeway
sign is allowed to extend 30 feet above the 1,998 foot elevation ofthe centerline of Highway
66 at its intersection with the centerline of Interstate 5, and would effectively limit the
heights of signage on the subject properties to about 34 feet in height at the northernmost end
of the subject properties (i.e at Miguel's, which already has a sign in place) but to only about
18 feet in height at the southernmost end of the Holiday Inn Express site which is the area in
closest proximity to the residential zone 215 feet to the east.
III. Procedural. Reauired Burden of Proof
The criteria for approval of Zoning Map Amendments Annexation are described in
18.106.060.8 as follows:
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the
Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in
compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that one or more
of the following:
a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable
housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan,' or
b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or
Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed
circumstances; or
Planning Action PA # 2009-01151
Applicant: Clover Lane LLC
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 5 of 6
c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an
action; or
d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resultingfrom a change from one
zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base
density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in
18.106.030(G);or
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial,
employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively
impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in
the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as
affordable housing consistent with the approval standards setforth in 18.106. 030(G)
The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be
determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A
deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee
compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years.
Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
While staff would generally be very cautious about a zoning map amendment to benefit one
or two properties, in this case we believe that the vacation of the previous Clover Lane right-
of-way in the late 1990's and subsequent realignment of the street to a more parallel
relationship with the freeway interchange in order to reconfigure the lots and enable further
commercial development of this area can be found to represent a substantial change in
circumstances since the initial creation of the Freeway Sign Zone that merits revisiting by the
Planning Commission. The applicants have proposed to extend the Freeway Sign Zone to
encompass two additional properties, and in staff's view this is an appropriate response to the
visibility issues created with the street's realignment while at the same time remaining true to
what staff believe was the underlying intent of this zone to begin with - balancing the
signage needs of freeway-oriented businesses against the aesthetic impacts of freeway
signage on the rest of the community. In this instance, staffbelieve that the one or two signs
which would be allowed with approval will benefit the businesses while having little or no
noticeable aesthetic impact to their neighbors.
Should the Commission determine that the situation does not merit amendment of the zoning
map, staff believe that the height and design of the Holiday Inn building and the recent
modifications to the sign ordinance allowing signage on more than two frontages present
opportunities to modify the existing signage to enhance the visibility ofthe building from the
freeway and Clover Lane. Should the Commission choose to approve the request, staff
would recommend that a single condition be attached:
1) That all necessary permits including electrical permits, structural permits, and sign
permits shall be obtained prior to the installation of freeway signs on the subject
properties. Permit applications shall include scalable elevation drawings and a site
plan, a clear and accurate identification of the height above mean sea level, and shall
clearly demonstrate that all proposed signage complies with the Sign Ordinance
(AMC 18.96) and will not project into required fire apparatus access areas.
Planning Action P A # 2009-01151
Applicant: Clover Lane LLC
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 6 of 6
ODOT comments: #2009-01151 (Clover Lane, LLC 1 Holiday Inn Express proposed free... Page 1 of 1
Derek Severson - Fwd: ODOT comments: #2009-01151 (Clover Lane, LLC / Holiday Inn Express
proposed freeway signage zone map amendments)
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Maria Harris
Derek Severson
11/2/09 4:03 PM
Fwd: ODOT comments: #2009-01151 (Clover Lane, LLC 1 Holiday Inn Express proposed
freeway signage zone map amendments)
Bill Molnar
CC:
>>> "PYLES David" <David.PYLES@odot.state.or.us> 11/2/20093:38 PM >>>
Maria:
The Oregon Department of Transportation appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the noticed Clover
Lane, LLC / Holiday Inn Express proposed request for a zoning map amendment to extend the "Freeway Sign
Zone / Freeway Overlay District" from its current 700-foot radius to include additional properties along the west side
of Clover Lane. We understand the subject properties are described as Map 39-1E-14AA, Tax Lots 3200, 6700 and
6800. Please include this correspondence in the public hearing record of the Ashland Planning Commission
scheduled for November 10, 2009. Please copy me on the City's final decision.
We offer the following comments, in the interest of the Department's signage permitting authority, regarding signs
visible to / from state highways.
1) The state, through the ODOT, regulates signs on private property where visible to state highways. Within
Ashland city limits, a proposed sign visible to a state highway would need to meet both city and state codes.
2) No signs are allowed within state highway rights-of-way. This includes no vertical encroachment within the right-
of-way (e.g., overhanging signage). Signs found within state right-of-way can be subject to removal and immediate
pick-up.
3) On private property, some signs need state permits while others do not require state permits. To make that
determination, two questions are asked. First, is the sign posted for compensation (e.g., receiving ad revenue, or
paying a land lease)? If so, it is an "outdoor advertising sign", requiring a state permit. If not, a second question is
asked: is the sign posted at the location of some business or activity open to the public? If not, it is an "outdoor
advertising sign" and requires a state permit. Note, the sign does not need to be at the same business advertised
on the sign; just some business. Additionally, "compensation" includes money, as well as barter, forgoing debt, et
cetera - Le., anything of value.
4) All signs under state jurisdiction must meet some basic requirement, mostly safety issues. These are listed
within Oregon Revised Statute 377.720.
Please address and incorporate these Department interests regarding freeway signage within the City of Ashland's
final decision. We request notification and coordination of future signage applications, visible to / from state
highways within the City of Ashland, meeting the above stated outdoor advertising sign criteria tests. We appreciate
the opportunity to provide development review service to the applicant and City of Ashland. We look forward to
working with Ashland on future land use permit applications.
Kind regards,
David J. Pyles 1 Development Review Planner III
The ODOT Region 3/ District 8 1100 Antelope Rd. I White City, OR 97503
if: (541)774.63991 ~: (541)774.63491 ~: Davld.Pyles@odot.state.or.us
file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\seversod\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4AEF02BBA... 11/212009
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING APPLICATION
A request for a Zone Map Amendment to extend the
Freeway Sign Overlay Zone
PROPOSAL: This planning application proposal is for an amendment to the City's
Zoning Map to extend the Freeway Sign Overlay Zone's 350' radius to include additional
lands along Clover Lane. The purpose of the request is to allow existing freeway oriented
businesses sign visibility.
PROJECT INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
Holiday Inn Express
J on Warren, Owner
565 Clover Lane
Ashland, OR 97520
LAND USE PLANNING:
Urban Development Services, LLC
485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-482-3334
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Employment
ZONING DESIGNATION:
E-1
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
Commercial District, Chapter 18.32
Employment District, Chapter 18.40
Sign Regulations, Chapter 18.96
ADJACENT ZONING / USES:
The adjacent properties are either zoned Commercial or Employment and the area
predominantly consists of "freeway oriented businesses" such as motels, restaurants
and gas stations, but also includes some light manufacturing businesses.
I. PROJECT PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND:
Proposal: The proposal is for a Zoning Map Amendment to expand the Freeway Overlay
Zone to include additional properties that have been developed since the overlay map was
adopted in 1982 (ORD. 2176). This is best illustrated in Exhibit "D" below.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
Background: A pre-application meeting was held on March 11, 2009, at which time
comments were received from various City and State departments. However, due to the
nature of the application being specifically about signage, very little input was forwarded.
In addition, general discussions have occurred with the Planning staff about the nature of
the application as it relates to the Freeway Zone's overlay boundaries which would
include an "extended radius" or a modification of the overlay to include specific
properties.
II. PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
After exploring a variety of avenues over the last year, it has become apparent that the
subject property has little to no opportunity to remain competitive with other "freeway
types of businesses" not necessarily in Ashland, but other businesses along the
California! Oregon 1-5 corridor. In essence, most travelers along the I-5 corridor are not
looking specifically for Ashland as their destination, but instead looking for a convenient
and safe place to spend the night, but due to a variety of factors they can not easily "see"
or "find" the subject property. There are a number of physical constraints creating this
problem, but when combined, it has become a serious problem for not just the subject
business, but also the other "freeway oriented" businesses along Clover Lane. These
constraints are as follows:
1) Clover Lane is very narrow for a commercial street, especially one close to the
freeway and at the base of the Siskiyou Mountains;
Clover Lane is a very narrow road primarily due to its history when it was once a single
lane road, prior to the installation of 1-5, when it extended from Highway 66 to the
southern end of Washington Street. Because of this history and the concentration of the
incremental development that occurred near the Highway 66 corridor and later the 1-5
corridor, the narrow right-of-way remained, infrastructure was sporadic, buildings were
haphazardly placed and, most importantly, there was a lack of planning (Note: There was
no City or ODOT Planning Departments during this period and aWmost decisions were
made by DOT Civil Engineers with little to no public input).
2) Clover Lane has signs at its entrance which state "dead end" giving the
impression there is no further businesses beyond the sign to patronize;
Approximately 140' from the Clover Lane / Highway 66 intersection, a "dead end" sign
exists (a second sign on the same pole also reads "no truck turn around"). Although the
sign is correct and the street does dead-end in a large cul-de-sac approximately 950' from
the street's entrance, this sign's pronounced location and the lack of visibility of the
subject property as well as other businesses located near the cul-de-sac, give the
impression to the patron (especially at night) that he's/she's made a wrong turn.
According to the various reports obtained from the hotel's manager, these people either
find the hotel after various turning maneuvers or leave the City entirely to find other
lodging. Unfortunately, it's not just the loss of revenue that is difficult for the business,
485 W Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
each complaint received is subject to a hefty corporate fine causing additional financial
burden on a business already struggling.
3) Clover Lane has a sharp curvature in it which limits visibility of the business(s);
Clover Lane has a relatively sharp curvature just beyond the "dead end" sign referred to
above. The curvature, in combination with a few mature trees and the dead end sign,
gives automobilists the impression that there are no businesses at the end of the street.
This is best illustrated in the photo below.
4) Distance between 1-5 off-ramps:
Once you pass Exit 14 southbound, there is not an off-ramp or turn around point until the
Mount Ashland Exit (approximately 8 miles up the mountain) or when traveling
northbound, there is not an off-ramp or turn around point until Exit 19 (5 miles). In many
cases, these distances are too great for a driver to turn around and still patronize the
businesses. Instead, they continue along 1-5 until the next available service. This fact is
likely more pronounced depending on the weather and time of day, but regardless, once
passed the distance between off-ramps creates an illogical excuse for a driver to turn
around.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
7300
1.413 Ac
i>,
2;1
i liF
:~I/
[-4,",,',
.'~ : '
I :i
,t, ''i,r
,,'" r '. ,
\, r
'.. I
\ .
~) <~\
f) \) ~I""
)/;/'
\ '-" ....:.~.. .
1\ >.~...... .........:-:'~-:~~0;:: ~.I !
'~ - ..~<'"<~;.::,:, ~:.;jf!J,'" i :2G~
..,; / _""'~.~ --. ;'l>'j" '.,
:.r~;~"S\"\~' ',"'~' ~.
...~ ~"" ........ ''''>-. ... "'<"
>'. \.... ~\, ,
":140.2,j'
V'lEST
6500
1.36 Ac.
6600
0.39 Ac
u':,
'T
lJ~'
n
y. <{
o
~
~1!
.( \\
<\ '>
,"',.." '\
).
(
1;~S
'/vE:3T
t',--
C',j
::,.
6400
0.72 Ac.
-~(:
6700
1.41 Ac.
;1:)
.;(:
...
Exhibit "B" - Plat Map of Clover Lane - Illustrates historic right-ai-way (dashed line), road curvature and
change of width from 29' to 53 '. Subject property is on Tax Lot #6700.
""
cL
'~'
,
i'" I
III. HISTORY & PURPOSE OF FREEWAY OVERLAY ZONE:
The Freeway Overlay Zone was adopted in 1982 (ORD. 2176) and is identified below in
Exhibit "C". The purpose of the Freeway Sign Overlay zone is intended to provide for
and regulate certain ground signs which identify businesses in commercial districts
located at freeway interchanges (AMC 18.96.100). In general, the only provision granted
to properties within the Freeway Overlay Zone that are not granted to properties outside
of it is the opportunity to have a pole sign (freeway sign). Pole signs are necessary along
freeway interchanges as travelers are typically unfamiliar with the area, require more
visible signage due to their high speeds and usually have a single purpose for stopping.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
I
I
Exhibit "C" - Existing Freeway Overlay Zone (lands within circle)
Exhibit "D" - Proposed Freeway Overlay Zone
I
I
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
As illustrated in the above zoning maps, the Freeway Sign Overlay radius is 350' and
centered on the Highway 66/1-5 Bridge. There doesn't appear to be much history as to
why 350' was chosen in 1982, but it can logically be assumed the dimension was based
on the existing businesses present at that time and that those businesses were primarily
freeway oriented with a large segment of their business coming from 1-5 travelers
needing services for food, lodging, snow chains, gas, mechanical assistance, etc.
Unfortunately, because the zoning designation was delineated with a radius, it then
indiscriminately included certain residential properties and excluded certain commercial
properties that were later developed with freeway oriented businesses. In essence, the
proposal essentially updates the 1982 map to reflect the pattern of development that has
occurred since.
IV. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT:
A primary consideration with this application is to provide freeway signage that is
directed towards the 1-5 traveler and not directed towards the residential neighbors to the
east. Unfortunately, because of the limited sign visibility and the circumstances described
above, a number of 1-5 travelers looking for businesses on the southern end of Clover
Lane get lost and or confused and will then go through the adjacent residential
neighborhoods searching for their destination. As one can imagine, this can be frustrating
for both the neighbors and travelers, especially when it occurs at night or in inclement
weather. However, with the installation of a pole sign near the southern end of Clover
Lane (beyond road curvature), it will give the travelers a better sense where their
destination is and will hopefully continue along Clover Lane to find it.
The applicants have also looked aesthetic concerns from the adjacent residential
neighborhood regarding sign clutter or sign pollution and have found there is no visibility
of potential signs from the neighboring properties (at least from the ground floor areas).
This is primarily due to the fact that there are a number of physical factors such as: First,
the proposal is to amend the overlay area to include only those lands south of Clover
Lane which provide an approximate 240' to 600' distance to the nearest residence. In
fact, the most logical location, as evidenced with other pole signs in the area, is to locate
the signs close to the 1-5 freeway which adds approximately another 150'. Second, the
difference in grade between the commercial area and the residential area is between 10'
and 30' depending upon the location. Third, each of the residential parcels, including the
residential parcels next to the residential area (see photos below), have buildings that
"screen" the existing pole signs. When these physical elements are combined with the
code's existing height limitation, the resulting effect is nominal. This is best illustrated in
the photos below. Finally, Section 18.96.100 D.3. of the Ashland Municipal Code limits
the height of a sign to be no higher than elevation point 2028 above mean sea level (see
Exhibit "F") which essentially puts any new pole sign beyond the viewpoint of the
residential neighborhoods to the east.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 t fax 541.482.3336
Exhibit "E" - Existing freeway pole signs and any future freeway signs will not be visible from the
residential neighbors to the east (photos taken from center of Sutton Place cul-de-sac).
V. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CRITERIA:
The criteria for a zoning map amendment can be found in the Ashland Municipal Code,
Section 18.108.060 B.l. and are noted below followed by the applicant's findings offact:
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 may be a number of responses
that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete.
B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions.
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes
subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be
approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application
demonstrates that one or more of the following:
a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable
housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or
The applicant is specifically basing the request on Criteria "b" below, but would like to
make a point that in an indirect way, this change will also address a public need.
The applicant contends that businesses needing the freeway overlay signage are
businesses that generally cater to 1-5 travelers, some tourists and very few locals. In
reality, 1-5 travelers have many options as they can choose from a number of freeway off
ramps to obtain their service needs. However, by stopping in Ashland they pay the local
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) or Food & Beverage Tax which help pay for various
programs such as tourism, tourism related development, economic development, open
space and water quality improvements. This is important as very few 1-5 travelers put
much demand on City services and generally are off the freeway for their service needs
and quickly back-on again heading to their point of destination. In this sense, freeway
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
businesses capture much needed revenue for the City that could easily be lost to another'
community .
b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or
Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed
circumstances; or
As noted prior, the initial Freeway Overlay Zone was established in 1982 (ORD. 2176) to
assist in the identification of commercial businesses located near the interchange. At this
time, the "overlay boundary" adopted by the City was in the form of a 350' radius
centered on the 1-5/ Highway 66 Bridge. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be much
history as to why 350' was chosen in 1982, but it can logically be assumed the dimension
was based on the existing businesses present at that time and that those businesses were
primarily freeway oriented businesses with a large portion of their revenue coming from
1-5 travelers needing services for food, lodging, snow chains, gas, mechanical assistance,
etc. Unfortunately, because the zoning designation was delineated with a 350' radius, it
then indiscriminately included certain residential properties and excluded certain
commercial properties that were later developed with freeway oriented businesses. In
essence, the proposal essentially updates the 1982 map to reflect the pattern of
development that has occurred since - an approximate 27 year period. As such, the
applicant contends there has been a substantial change in the circumstances over the past
27 years since the 1982 Freeway Overlay Zone was established by the City and the
proposal is simply an adjustment to the map to reflect the changed circumstances.
A second finding is the fact the southern end of Clover Lane was extended and modified
in the late 1990's that actually created parcels conducive to development. As noted
previously, Clover Lane originally connected to "Washington Street" prior to 1-5, but
once 1-5 was installed and severed the street, the remnant parcels on the northern half
(Clover Lane) were both odd in size (very small or very large) and shape (very acute
angles). However, in 1998, the property was then reconfigured by the property owner via
a Lot Line Adjustment which shifted the Clover Lane right-of-way to run parallel with
the freeway which then created parcels conducive to individual ownership and small
commercial and employment businesses. In doing so, it generated a relatively substantial
increase of commercial development along Clover Lane in a short period of time
culminating in five commercial buildings on six parcels in less than six years. As such,
when one considers these changes and the circumstances relating to the northern end of
Clover Lane (the narrow right-of-way, the dead-end sign and the lack of visibility due to
the road's curvature and trees) there appears to be a necessity to adjust the overlay map to
reflect current circumstances.
c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an
action; or
Although not a principal factor in the justification of the proposed map amendment, there
have been many documented cases where patrons looking for services can not find them
and leave. Although it is unclear how many of the patrons continue to search, find other
accommodations in the vicinity or get frustrated and continue on their 1-5 travels to the
next off ramp with "freeway traveler services", the reality is these individuals are
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
essentially lost and driving around needlessly. (NOTE: The 1-5 and Hwy. 66 interchange
is the only interchange located in the City limits which of course businesses contribute to
the local 9% Transient Occupancy Tax and 5% Meals Tax which help off-set the costs to
various City programs such as tourism, tourism related development, economic
development, open space acquisition, sewage treatment, etc.).
d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one
zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base
density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in
18.106.030(G);or
Not applicable.
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial,
employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively
impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in
the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as
affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G)
The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be
determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed
restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with
affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not
apply to council initiated actions.
Not applicable.
VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES (pertinent policies only addressed)
Chapter VII - Economic Element
GOAL: To ensure that the local economy increases in its health, and diversifies in
the number, type and size of businesses consistent with the local social needs, public
service capabilities, and the .retention of a high quality environment.
VII-l Policy-The City shall zone and designate within the Plan Map sufficient
quantity of lands for commercial and industrial uses to provide for the employment
needs of its residents and a portion of rural residents consistent with the population
projection for the urban area.
The applicant contends the proposed modification adjusts the overlay map based on
population and land use changes that have occurred since 1982 where the population
increased from roughly 15,000 residents to 19,500 residents and the land uses in this area
went from vacant lands to developed lands that primarily service the 1-5 traveler.
VII-2 Policy-The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance to provide for:
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
a) Land division and development within employment and manufacturing districts,
and continue the employment zoning district which will provide for service, retail
and light industrial uses consistent with specific performance standards relative to
heavy truck traffic, noise, dust, vibration, and non-work related single- passenger
vehicle trips.
Consistent with the above policy, in the late 1990's, the City's Planning Commission
permitted the southern end of Clover Lane to be extended and modified creating parcels
conducive to employment, retail and manufacturing development. In doing so, it
generated a relatively substantial increase of commercial development along Clover Lane
in a short period of time culminating in five commercial buildings on six parcels in less
than six years. As such, the applicant is requesting the Land Use Ordinance and overlay
map to help recognize these developed lands that have since developed and provide for
retail services that specifically cater to 1-5 travelers.
VII-3 Policy-The City shall develop and implement an economic development
program which will attempt to increase the number, variety and size of family wage
retail, service, and light industrial activity employers within the urban area, with
particular emphasis on employers paying wages at or above the median County
wage, and employing from 5 to 100 people, or who are locally owned. The City shall
work with regional economic development agencies on coordinating regional
economic development activities.
Although the above policy is intended to target "new" economic development
opportunities, the applicant and his neighbors contend it is equally important to retain
existing business that have been created since this policy was adopted and since 1982
when the original overlay map was created. In doing so, it recognizes businesses and their
employees that provide necessary public services.
VII-5 The City shall encourage economic development of the local resources and
enhance employment opportunities for existing residents. The City's policy is that
economic development shall always have as its primary purpose the enhancement of
the community's economic health.
As noted previously, the preservation of existing businesses in the community is
sustainable and very important - especially to those businesses that cater to a "specific
type of patron" that has no purpose to visit the community other than to obtain their
services quickly and conveniently. If this is not possible, this type of patron will continue
towards their destination and find these services along their way. By capturing these
types of patrons, the City captures much needed Transient Occupancy Tax and Meals Tax
revenues that are specifically allocated to programs supporting the community's
economic health and environmental health.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
VII. FREEWAY SIGN ZONE - CODE LANGUAGE:
Although not proposed to be amended, Section 19.96.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code
(see Exhibit "F" below) corresponds with the purpose of the application and will allow
business owners within the area to apply for the provisions therein. In particular, Sections
D.2 and D.3 (underlined for emphasis), identify the general goal of the proposal which is
to allow for a pole sign in compliance with D.2 and D.3 that is visible to 1-5 travelers as
they approach the property from the entrance of Clover Lane.
18.96.100 Freeway Sign Zone
A. Purpose. This special overlay zone is intended to provide for and regulate certain
ground signs which identify businesses in commercial districts located at freeway
interchanges.
B. Establishment and Location of Freeway Sign Zones. Freeway sign zones shall be
depicted on the official zoning map of the City and identified as the Freeway Overlay
District.
C. Freeway Overlay Sign Regulations. All signs in this district shall comply with Section
18.96.090, except for ground signs, which shall comply with the provisions of Section
18.96.100(D), ground sign regulations.
D. Ground Sign Regulations.
I. Number. One freeway sign shall be permitted for each lot in addition to the signs
allowed by 18.96.090 of this Chapter. (Ord. 2290, 1984)
2. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one hundred (100) square feet per sign.
3. Height. Signs shall not exceed a height of 2028 feet above mean sea level.
Exhibit "F" - Illustrates the existing code language that corresponds with the Freeway Overlay Zone
(not proposed to be changed).
VIII. CONCLUSSION:
As discussed through-out this document, the purpose of this application is to provide for
improved visibility to uses that generally cater to 1-5 travelers and for an area that has
some odd circumstances associated with it because of the existing street signage, existing
trees, history of the right-of-way, road curvature and narrowness of the street. It is not the
intent of the applicant to "advertise" the facility, but instead provide recognition to
patrons not familiar with the area.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.33341 fax 541.482.3336
AREA PHOTOS & DESCRIPTIONS
Photo #1: Looking south from Clover Lane, this picture shows the "dead end" sign, two
"no truck turn around" signs, the street's narrow right-of-way and what appears to be a
dead end street. However, what is difficult to illustrate is how dramatic this image would
look like at night or in inclement weather and to a person( s) not familiar with the area.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
AREA PHOTOS & DESCRIPTIONS
Photo #2: Looking north from Clover Lane, this picture shows the existing pole signs
within the Freeway Overlay Zone's 350' radius. Based on Section 18.96.100 D.2 and D.3
of the Ashland Municipal Code, these signs are not to exceed a 100 square feet or exceed
the mean sea level of2028. As such, each is approximately 30' to 45' high based on their
elevation level.
NOTE: Although the zone's radius appears to have been "randomly" drawn in 1982, the
reality is the sign standards for area and height work very well as the signs provide
visibility for the businesses, but limit sign pollution and the typical sign aggression often
seen in other communities without sign standards. It is the applicant's contention a new
pole sign will have minimal aesthetic impact to the area, but will provide the businesses
in the area an opportunity to be seen.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
AREA PHOTOS & DESCRIPTIONS
Photo #3: Looking east from I-5 overpass, this picture shows the subject area be included
in the Freeway Overlay Zone. Again, although this area is relatively visible during the
day from this position, at night, in inclement weather or to the I-5 travelers not familiar
with the area, the challenge to find businesses along the southern end of Clover Lane can
be daunting.
485 W. Nevada Street I Ashland, OR 97520 I phone 541.482.3334 I fax 541.482.3336
.... .'. 'iy ...... .......;, .......i. ..X.'i..... .........i.............. ......C..i ..,.., ......... .....i..... .......... .,.'i'i ...
'i ,.C. .,........................'i...:i. ;. .i>i ..'.... .... ..'...... C..'..
.,.i..'..i........ ..........:... ,............'...... ......,..... ....'.......,.................. '.:.r", ..........C..........
i...' .........'.. .i'i ......... . i...'......,' ...:. ......... ......'......i.... ............
'i,i... .....i.,i .... .......ii i.i. ". . .' .' ...........i .X','
.. ....iX .. .. .......... :i ......... ..... ..... '.'>ii.
....i.. .,' ..,...... ....'.:...,.. i.. '.i.,.i
i'i ...... ...... i',." . .." ii.C., ...,.......... ".i.'
;..,i, .. .i..>' .i ,i,i'."i'.i' .i'.'i'"
i'.'.'... :..,....i,iii.'i. .., ...'.,'/....i.,.'... .....'..............'. .,: .
.......................' ...>........ii:i :.. . ..i'iCi .......i.. .. ......i
." ....Xi."., '.' "i .,.....'............,i;ii..' .......i'....'ii.'....
i'/i)':>>ii .i, .' " ,"'.'/i
"ii, ..." '...'..:,.... 'i./i,. ',..:..,'}
...> """'.'.'" '...........,..;.,.. ........:i.:.'..
'i..' . "" 'i.' ,. . ,...........,.......
'." '," i...... "" ie,': ,.' .' '.'
;,;'i....:. . .:i........ .
.......,........ .."..')'.. ."'.,,: .... ,
'.: 'i .,..... i..'. .., "', /1
i.;..,'i ..' }.i.... ..... ..'
'. .i':,:",.' ''''{~''
.. '.' . "" .,,". '.' ". . $,.'.p,,' ,,'
"".'; "i .,> .'.,. . , m "
~i: "if .,,"
~~i."
",~~'l,t"
~~ \
~'1.~,~ '
~i~~.,_'~)
,:,~~.tl"/
~.~''',
.'~
I.'~
"', m " ~'i:
~~ .'
~~~~ ~ ,~'~
I~ ~~'( ~~
,~~':S.':c~';:>: ~
, '.~\" \. ',' 1'01:\8i
";::s;\",\"",,, SB.~
~..;w '~,,~ ,'.
,,, \\ -."" ..::\ '1I'~ \.
'ffi ,'''~,..
~~~ ~"")Q .~~
...~,\_~
~, ~~.'II.~~'"
"".~'~."
t~~~ \:"'~~~~~~~~~""
, ,. ~'0:~~~~ ~ ,
i.
'..' ...:., .
....:
..
:.
, ,
"
"
\
,~\~~~
.\""l"
'&t~~111\1~~.~. '.
~~.l~~~~ '.
~~'Wi:;;~'\~~
" ~~A'
~~~~
.,'1
" , " ~ ;
, ' ! ~ '
i.' .'
'-c-
I
en
I-
-
m
-
:I:
><
W
LL
L1.
~
en
i:::: 'lli;'N
!':~**
.. ,,:' i:l~~,
, : '! ". ..: \:t~~~0~$;.~0
I. . :- ; ~T~-;T~-J~Tl?<~ ....."
, ~ : "'
I , ; ~.,<~ .:; , ' ~
,/' ~ 'i ~ ;
/'
:, i:
, I ~ I :I
" ,/ :"
: i : i.../: t"~. .r ; ;: ~
,.'[
)./: :: .i'
,.", . ",,>,(.' . ,t ',: . ~,"; ~ .~. 1 :. ~
/,,'.':; ,,' :
l_/l~/::T '. .Hi :' .... ,
\, : II . ':(if,}' i : '" I
,\ . , IHr"'! 'i' '
" : I
I,: :
I . . ..
I' ':..... :
. ':,:.
~. !.; ; ~ !
'I
i: I
, '
: :
;, i
': i
i "
.1'
: ~
: I I:: il
':: ii'
I " ~
I
.
~ i
'::);;1" [
i . . i , I LI'LU: :_-: . '
. i
'-c-
II)
~
'-c-
o
I
0)
o
o
N
~
~
i:! :
,: I I_,
~;i
~ '~",~.
~
,
,~
\~II
. ~'?i
~
,',& '~,~;:;,"~}i\~
&:1
~,
. ..,........ ".", .
~
.0
t:!
III
"S
u
rtJ
'"'
~
j
i::
0
III
Z ~
~
~
~
I..
.r;
~
t:!
~
~
~
III
1
l!)
Z
-
Z
o
N
o
T""
I
T""
I
0:::
~... ............,........................
I ...... ........'......
~I~~, ~:i.
~~i,... Z '.....'..,...I,.'?, .............'.'. .
., O}'..', ~ r'/'.i~
III",:}, N'i~'~_ .'.1'.' i:
0~ ~. ? "f"" ........:, ..~.':'...
<< .,:i..'{ ".,...~:':::"" I, :~
~ ....),.,....,....:.: ......... .....,.:/ .,.' ......,... I,i,.......
"~~~/..,'.)<I..,..".... ;::...:..?),.}.' \\" .....,.'..'..,.. ... ....
~~L::'~.. .:". ...,.......... I.""'" ",i.:':' Y." .......,.,.... II~
,':i"..'"~,,, .......,.,\\\
"~" i.1 ","J..i
:.~. ......... ....... ~,... \
'j: i-.....~ ...J
'i::.:.
~
z
o
!: ,: ~ Ui
!~, :' . <C..J ~ ~
. : ; '!J I Ii:
: · 'et: I. , 0::: U) ><
I,W:,.:>l W W W
, I>:' I . .11\ > -.... "'-
ilO 0 0::: ~
> ' ...J W ...J
'Ii' : ~ I i /,.. (JD.. et:
::=Ii &n&nO W
>- i ; ,..COo::: >
'.: : i ,W. : i.. .: ; It) D.. Q 0
...... /J~c(:,i ~:b ~~
'" "0 .-. I---QIOW Os:
,~</i:VI~> ~;~ ~ ~ ~S'
I' B ... iJ.. " .... ..~/'.ii." ":~i'~'~ ..' .'.
~~% ' ! iIW., .' ' ................' ': .' ;i"
'~~2:i: ,,' !.:! .:. .x' .....
i"~.;i . . I.: ...",ii.........'....... ..........
1::' :'~.! :.... iY'.' i.;,;,;:;,;;...................'}......................iJ..i:'." /.'}.'~;i;ii ' ....
~'~0 ,.... 88 .... .,..
. ... ' .::.'...... , .... ,'. ',..... .... ".'
,. I ';i.i".'';',;;, ....(............ ' ....'. ... I.."'. .. '., '.' ....., ................. " .'. . .',..
.".(i'.!. ., ........ .... "." ....'... ... ":',.' .'.' ",/
'~~;;J!t ',it ,:' · ',. '~'.~;{i',i<J~;.+::'i!'~: ~
~ '~ ~\: ~ s..ii."..! ..i,i,
"....,. .............)i .....,.,...... :~o
.i.. .'.'i'":,,, 0
"~~ ~',i'. ..... .....i..'i... i.'i'i':., 0
~ ~~''''',.~~_~" "'~~.i.i"i.......... ..........................i....'.. "'
o
...
, .
, ,
N
I
Cf)
I-
co
I
X
W
LL
U.
<(
I-
(f)
z
()
Il-
l-
~
<(
II
(l
z
<(
-1
~
lU ~
> . ~
_ ~ g .n
i- .~ ~ ~
<( ><~~~
l- ddi
z.n~~~~
lU~:f!7!;:~
l- ~ H ~ I
~
I
~'I
a; ~
~n:;
.55:1
",III". .
I
t
iil
,111;/
~~~it
-'I..\?
. ....,..
.antl1' ..".
. . .
"
. . ._. .\. ,.'"_ ._ _ w.
. '.
. .,.- ^--_.~-'_..
\~
i1'lt
~\t
l\a\
. .._- .~. .......- -~ ......., ..,. ," -"
I
...-""-""--
", '-.
d
iiw~
15..
lo!1
dal
...... .
..0' ..- - ,,- .--..
'''_''':~~g.. d'"
::"_. '8g2 . .,' .:',':.- ~
, ~.a~'" // E
~ . ~o
.....
r
i
I
.. n. ;
...
,.. ~
... ~ ~ ~
~ '!} !l\ ~
~ Co x 1;'
~r~~~
cs Cl
~ i i
!
.:;
i _ttri
i _.II!
~ '. ! ~til~
... \.I....~
f:: 'ifZlll .'
'6 .....
wT
I \
! \ \ '.
, \
\
\ \
\
, '.
"-
I
.j
'J
'(
.. l-
t. t
f y.
S '\
~
'\ t.
~
t
" '\
3
l
~~
~ B
"0 -
~ ~
,.....
L.()
,.....
,.....
o
I
Q')
o
o
N
<C
0...
<
~
~
~~l~
~ II i
~~~i
~~:t
i
i
I:)
o
z
tC
.es
---
I
I
f
I
~"
i
I
Jl
..
z
0
-
w en
M z Z
I ~
(/) <C
.J ~
t- ~(/)
- w~ ~
al >1-
- Oct: .J
J: .JUJ a::
,..(J~
>< W
1.t)U')~ >
W ~~a. cO
U-: 9~1- w~
I cnU')(J ~~
u..
oU')w
~ ~an, Q.w
:ft ...m Ow ......
ct:~ (J)
1.t)::J (J)
(/) ~~(I) Q.LL u.
0
0
~ ..-
It>
~ 0
LO
~ LO
0 ,.. C\I
0
I CO
0
0')
0
0
N
~
~
~
~
u
rn
""'
~
j
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
j...
~
~
~
~
~
III
g.
~
z
.'~~
\~- ","" !
\ l~,;--; 1
... \ ~}-~.?i;f~ ;1
,\ ' ,~~~(
., ' _~~ ,,I _.
,,, \-. . '._' ::::--::::;/ i '" ~ 1
VI ''\ '-"\ '.~ I "- /
'. -.-
J- "" ---:-- Z / -,,~
-~ ~~~ \. '" .
_-- -'~ /' 0 '._-~ / / /
- ----.----- / / /
"" ~_________.--;.:.--;7 / W ffl // ---
..... _._ /' ," VI ~
_ ~~ _ _", ~'-....--_____--- .// ,/ Z Z // I '
.,.. ~~__ ~___-----' _ ~ -""...~ ,,/,,/ <( .A' / t
-. -:;::;.:..---________~-~---:-------- __-----.... /' .J;oc.. f '- /
>< =.::;:::;-::: ~-:.::.::::::__-~ /..:..----' 0.: / ~-,,--
~::--:::::::::---_---.-~-- .___.:;:- / N '^ )( ~'
;;;;--- ~"'" L_- ,..../ Y. VI ~
- --~-----"'\ .-" ...----.' ~~//.
W :.=::::::::-._.~ ,-----/ ----- 7// W W W ~~;?@. '/
/ _- /- /z >- @?~,/
~ .."~~~~~;~' ;::--7 9 ffi ~ -~~/
LL - _-----..:.--/'- --? /..'" 'i I.) l1. a: ,.z#.mf// ( /
~ /~y :c: ~ //// ~ Lt) 0 W ~~- "$ ~;;/ ~:-:--~-
~ ____-~--~7> ~/ / ~ fD 0:: > ~/ .~
U) - :'---:7// I _----, / / \.._.~ 0 I/) ll. 0 0 ~;.-,.
// ~ /// / 1061- w>: ~;:?\
't"" /-'7 I ~_ .~ / L~ /-- g I/) 0 en;o:c ~ \ ),/
&n7://:( ~._/ / /' / // ~:gw o~/ \ ) r f
~ '/ /1 \ .___-----" l /" L.-..-_---7 ./'" ,/ /...... J 00.. W ! I / I
< '-____ ;',/ { /' / /' //, // ..... Iii'''' LU !;' I !
o ~---j // L'-~7 ////// //::-::J/:/:/(' ( ~ ~ ~ ~ e: /// //) //)
I (/ I .-f , / :/: ""/ / //! ( /
"'" I ,-~______-7/ / '/ / / j' .I ,/1 j /' '"' /'"' /
WI I / " ,I /'" (i / // (/ /' /
o 7 / / '---~ 1;/ ? $/j~~; v-;# ;/; (
o / ("" / // 'l--~ //! / j I( ( ~ I I \
^-I t ________7 //' ,/ /' / i//// / / ! (I \ \ (' I /1 "-
,~ ~ /1/ / /' / / / ,/ / / I I' \ flU I ( "
~ ___--~///j/ / //// // // / \ l \ f' (' f \-.r'\ "^,
/ /~ / ;' \ \ \ I, I ~ ,
_.~ / /,1/, "" f
~ ~::-~ //1;/ /.:;; /:///. //// / \ { \ i 111"! \ I '''.';''
/ / / / ( r ~ \! /I,!I /' I
, J
a;
(I)
LL
o
o
.,....
o
10
II)
C\l
o
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
November 10,2009
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
RE:
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
Questions:
1. Are the land uses included in the land use matrix consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan? Are there uses that should be modified, deleted or added?
2. Do the design standards seem consistent with the employment center envisioned in the Croman Mill
Site Redevelopment Plan? Are there standards that should be changed, deleted or added?
3. Do the sustainable design standards go too far, not go far enough or seem just about right?
Background:
The City Council reviewed and approved the original conceptual plan on February 17,2009. The plan
was forwarded to the Planning Commission to refine the plan and develop an implementing ordinance.
To date, the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to study and evaluate refinements to the
redevelopment plan at six meetings (3/10/2009, 5/12/2009, 5/26/2009, 7/28/2009, 9/29/2009,10/13/2009). In these
previous meetings the Planning Commission has reviewed the land use distribution, street and
transportation framework, allowable land uses, proposed ordinance language, site design standards, and
sustainability standards. The Croman Advisory Committee has held three meetings (7/15/2009,9/09/2009,
10/21/2009) in order to become familiarized with the original plan, review the items noted above, and
formulate their recommendations
The three questions listed above are intended to cover broad categories relating to major components of
the draft Croman Mill District (CMD) Redevelopment Plan. These questions were provided to the
Croman Advisory Committee (CAC) at their meeting on October 21 st, 2009 for consideration in
reviewing the draft ordinance and design standards. The CAC will discuss their responses to these
questions at their final meeting on November 18th, 2009. The CAC will forward recommendations,
comments, and concerns to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the public hearing
process.
Over the last nine months a considerable amount of discussion has occurred generating comments and
suggestions from Planning Commissioners and members of the Croman Advisory Committee
concerning the development of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan. Given the breadth of discussion
in these prior meetings it is difficult to encapsulate all of the relevant points raised in one memorandum.
- 2-
In an effort to assist the Commission in identifying issues that have previously been raised that may
warrant further discussion, as well as list those primary discussion items that have been largely
addressed, a summary is provided. This background of the prior discussion topics may be of assistance
in formulating answers to the three questions presented, and thus an effort has been made to categorize
each of these topics within one of the broad questions noted above.
Prior Discussion Items
Question 1) Land Uses
Are the land uses included in the land use matrix consistent with the goals and objectives of the Croman
Mill Site Redevelopment Plan? Are there uses that should be modified, deleted or added?
Land Use
. Distribution of Office Employment and Compatible Industrial
The original land use framework in the conceptual plan located the compatible industrial district to the
west of the central boulevard and the Office Employment (C-OE) district to the east of the central
boulevard. Through discussions before the PC and CAC it was expressed that locating the Compatible
Industrial (C-CI) area adjacent to the existing rail line merited consideration. As a result, the revised
framework shifts the division of the two zoning districts in a north-south orientation so that the office
employment district is located on the northern portion of the site and the compatible industrial district is
on the southern portion of the site.
o CAC and PC members have discussed the relative size and location of the various land
use designations.
o CAC and PC members have raised the question as to whether the current M-l Zoned
property on the north-east portion of Mistletoe (which includes the mini-warehouses and
the newly constructed office) should be rezoned to Office Employment or Compatible
Industrial and as such incorporated into the Croman Mill District plan zone.
. Freight Rail Spur Easement
Relating to the distribution of C-OE and C-CI overlay areas, the Croman Advisory Committee and the
Planning Commission have each discussed the value of retaining the opportunity for future use of the
existing railroad line for freight shipping and receiving. In Staff's discussion with the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) rail safety and rail planning divisions, it was expressed that a
freight spur crossing multiple streets is a difficult option, which raised significant issues of public safety
and cost. Due to the re-orientation of the land uses noted above, the proposed redevelopment plan now
includes a "proposed rail spur area" along the eastern edge of the Compatible Industrial Overlay area.
. Annexation
The issue of whether to annex the plan area located outside the City Limits was discussed by the
Planning Commission on 9/29/09. Various commissioners have expressed a desire to retain the farming
use currently located on that piece of property at this time. Commissioners and Staff also discussed the
potential of including the area within the redevelopment plan for future inclusion, yet not annexing the
property at this time. Further it was stated that the Central Blvd. extension to Siskiyou Blvd. could still
be accommodated independent of its annexation.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.oLus
Tel 541-488-5305
Fax 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
r~'
- 3-
. Office Employment Overlay (C-OE) Land Uses
Concerning the use of Office Employment zoned lands, discussion has included numerous
comments reflected in the minutes that this overlay should include opportunities for:
o Temporary Employee Housing
· Ensuring it is reserved for employee use and not used as tourist accommodations.
o Small Coffee Houses and Restaurants (less than 1,500 sq.ft.)
o Ancillary Employee Serving Uses
o Manufacturing and Assembly Space
· Discussion began regarding the percentage of floor area that is eligible to be
utilized for manufacturing, assembly or warehouse within an office building.
o Fitness Clubs
· It was expressed by various Commissioners that on-site fitness areas for
employees were an important use, however full scale fitness clubs open to the
public would be incongmous with the desire to maximize employment density.
o Day Care Facilities
· It was expressed by various Commissioners that on-site day care facilities for
employees should be permitted, and further that they should not be restricted to
employees but available to the general public as well.
. Compatible Industrial (C-CI) Overlay Land Uses
o Allowance for limited retail use in association with a permitted manufacturing or
assembly use.
· For plan consistency it was noted that retail in conjunction with a permitted
manufactured use of less than 600 sq.ft. should be permitted outright in the C-CI
overlay area.
o Outdoor Storage
· The proposed ordinance and design standards as currently drafted would preclude
outdoor storage of materials. Several Planning Commissioners expressed that in
circumstances where the outdoor storage area was limited in size and screened
appropriately that it could potentially be considered as a conditional use.
. Neighborhood Center (C-NC) Overlay Land Uses
o Residential Uses and Density
· A suggestion was made by an individual Planning Commissioner that the
proposed neighborhood center be used exclusively for high density housing. As
proposed the redevelopment plan calls for 100% of the ground floor of each
building in both the Neighborhood Center and the Mixed Use overlay areas to be
commercial in use. Therefore the exclusive use as residential as suggested would
not be permissible under the proposed ordinance. Varied opinions were given on
whether high density housing should be permitted in the Neighborhood Center or
whether the employment opportunities provided in the land use matrix should
take precedence.
o Manufacturing and Assembly
· A Commissioner suggested that allowances for "manufacture or assembly
contiguous to a retail outlet" be removed from the Neighborhood Center
concerned that this is an inappropriate use in that zone.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY 800-735-2900
www.ashland.oLus
r~'
-4-
. Mixed-Use Overlay (C-MU) Land Uses
o Early in the planning process Planning Commissioners raised the issue of allowing for a
degree of flexibility both in regard to land uses and design standards. The revised land
use framework delineates the area adjacent to Hamilton Creek along the plans western
boundary, and the southern portion of the site adjacent to Siskiyou Blvd., both as mixed-
use overlay areas. This designation provides an opportunity for mixing residential units
with office or light industrial uses. This new land use designation aims to provide some
flexibility to address physical constraints, transition from existing residential areas, and
building types while retaining the target use of employment generation.
. Tolman Creek Road Realignment
o The Planning Commission discussed the proposed realignment of Tolman Creek Road.
In recognizing that this component would be a future phase of development, and would at
that time necessitate a more thorough evaluation, it was suggested that the
Redevelopment Plan include some wording acknowledging that the plan shows a concept
for this intersect, but exact geometry is to be determined.
. Public & Institutional Uses
o Public Offices
· Comments were made by a member of the Planning Commission that Public
service and Community Buildings should be permitted in a manner that is
consistent with similar private uses. Specifically it was questioned why such
public uses were listed as permitted outright in the CI and OS overlay areas.
o Private Schools
· A suggestion was made by a Planning Commissioner that private schools, adult
education centers, or technical schools be permitted in the OE and CI overlay
area.
. Night-time or Evening Uses
o Concern has been expressed that should the site develop out as entirely day time office or
manufacturing uses, the area could be essentially empty at night.
o A CAC member raised the question as to what protection is in there for businesses to
ensure they can run a swing or graveyard shift without getting opposition from the
residential units in the plan area.
· It was suggested that a "hold harmless agreement" could be recorded on the deed
of all new residential units within the CMD zone to inform future residents of the
types of activities that they can expect in the vicinity.
. Land Intensive Uses
o Commissioners have raised the question as to whether land uses such as lumber yards,
sorting yards, and recycling centers should be accommodated in the CMD zone.
· The currently proposed Land Use matrix does not identify such uses as allowable
in an effort to preclude uses with a relatively low number of employees per acre.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.oLus
Tel 541-488-5305
Fax 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
r~'
- 5-
Question 2) Design Standards
Do the design standards seem consistent with the employment center envisioned in the Croman Mill Site
Redevelopment Plan? Are there standards that should be changed, deleted or added?
. Solar Orientation
o The proposed design standards include minimum setbacks intended to orient buildings
toward the street. Commissioners have discussed that in order to accommodate active
and passive solar energy opportunities the standards should allow a degree of flexibility
to enable deviation from this street orientation in favor of solar orientation.
· Section VIII-B-l(1-5) of the Design Standards outlines the orientation standards
as currently proposed.
. Street Layout
o The proposed street layout, and its potential impacts on solar orientation opportunities for
buildings, has been raised at both PC and CAC meetings. At the October 13th Planning
Commission meeting, staffwas asked to explore an east-west street layout to evaluate
solar orientation issues for future development. This evaluation is to be completed in
advance of the scheduled December 8th Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
to help inform how the proposed street layout, and an alternative east-west street
orientation, would impact the maximum energy efficiency of employment and
compatible industrial building construction.
o A Commissioner raised the issue of retaining flexibility in the location of Accessways.
· It was noted that the local streets and the proposed central boulevard are integral
to the proposed grid pattern and traffic circulation.
· It was suggested that the plan could consider other options for the Accessways,
such as consideration of an alternative multi-use path as satisfying their intended
purpose, or permitting more flexibility in their locations.
. Active Edge Development
o The "Active Edge" includes all property immediately adjacent to the Central Blvd, as
well as the lands facing the Central Park. As proposed this area would have added design
requirements providing for at least 65% of the total linear feet of the building's favade to
be built within two feet of the sidewalk with all front doors facing streets and walkways.
Additionally, at least 50% of the first-floor favade would have to be comprised of
transparent openings (clear glass, windows or doors) between 3 and 8 feet above grade.
Lastly, blank walls (without doors or windows) longer than 40% of a favade, or more
than 50 feet long along sidewalks would be precluded.
· In discussion of the solar orientation question noted above, and in regard to
potential opportunities for plaza space in front of buildings, the requirement for
buildings to be built within two feet of the sidewalk limitation was questioned by
Commissioners.
· The stipulation that only 65% of the building favade comply with this specific
setback, and its implications regarding plaza space opportunities, has not been
discussed by the Commission.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.oLus
Tel 541-488-5305
Fax 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
r~'
- 6-
. Building Height
o The topic of building height was a substantive one in the initial community meetings and
early Commission discussions. The proposed ordinance includes a dimensional table that
proposes both minimum heights and maximum heights.
· Questions have been raised regarding the 2 story minimum and how that would be
applied to Industrial buildings that may desire to have a one story portion.
o Members of the Airport Commission serving on the CAC have raised concerns regarding
the potential multi -story buildings and their impact on the flight paths of incoming
aircraft.
· To address this concern the maximum height allowable in the proposed design
standards for each overlay zone is equal to the preexisting limits of 40' in the M-1
zone and 35' in the R -1- 5 zoned property. However, through the application of a
height bonus for meeting LEED sustainability standards a building could
potentially exceed these pre-existing height limitations. In these cases in
consideration of this stated concern, the draft design standards include the
requirement that: increases in building height exceeding the maximum permitted height
through the application of a Sustainable Development Height Bonus shall demonstrate
compliance with Federal Aviation Administration standards for airport approach zones (VII 1-
C-8 (1 )d).
. Proximity to Existing Residences
o Both CAC and PC members raised concerns about the impact of future Office or
Industrial development upon the existing residences in the immediate vicinity.
· In response to such concerns the area immediately to the east of Hamilton Creek
is proposed to be a mixed use overlay area (C-MU) to allow a more gradual
transition from the adjacent residences to the interior of the redevelopment site
where higher intensity uses would be located.
· A "Residential Buffer" area in proximity to existing residences has been proposed
to establish specific design standards and height limitations within this transition
area.
. Industrial Building Design
o Flexibility in Design
· There has been limited discussion regarding the type of buildings permitted in the
C-CI area that is not located on the Central Blvd, indicating that there may be a
value in allowing a greater degree of design flexibility to allow more traditional
industrial type buildings.
· The issue of retaining some higher level of design standards along the active edge
was raised in the original plan and has been again raised through this review
process.
o Rail Spur Orientation
· The current design standards state that buildings built adj acent to the rail spur
easement shall be designed to accommodate a loading & unloading area in
consideration of the rail access.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.oLus
Tel 541-488-5305
Fax 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
r~'
-7-
Sustainability Standards:
Do the sustainable design standards go too far, not go far enough, or seem just about right?
Prior discussion before the Planning Commission and the Croman Advisory Commission have not yet
addressed in full the details outlined in the Sustainable Design Standards or the Sustainable Height
Bonus allowance for LEED certified buildings. However as energy conservation, water conservation,
and other sustainability issues have significant crossover with other aspects of the plan, a number of
pertinent concerns have been voiced that address the question above.
. Rainwater Catchment
o The representative of the Tree Commission serving on the CAC raised voiced concern
over the proposed Sustainability Standard that recommends that harvested rainwater or
reclaimed water be used to irrigate at least 25 percent of a project's landscaped areas.
· It was noted that in the dry months such a standard could be difficult or
impossible to comply with without extensive on-site, or district serving, water
retention systems.
· It was suggested that rainwater catchment should be than a recommendation,
requiring a certain amount of retention so it is achievable.
. Parking Standards
o Commissioners discussed whether certain areas, like the neighborhood commercial
center, might have reductions in parking beyond the current parking standards and
whether this could encourage people to use public and alternative transportation.
· It was noted that LEED neighborhood standards can provide for reductions in
parking when adequate alternative transportation, or consolidated parking
structures are available.
· The Commission was favorable toward reductions in parking in consideration of
alternative parking management proposals.
o It was briefly discussed at the CAC 10/21/09 meeting that a percentage of onsite parking
spaces is to be made of pervious materials as a method of storm water management.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.oLus
Tel 541-488-5305
Fax 541-552-2050
TTY 800-735-2900
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
OCTOBER 21, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Matt Warshawsky called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way.
Committee Members Present:
Richard Hendrickson, Airport Commissioner
Eric Navickas, City Councilor
Russ Chapman, Conservation Commissioner
Keith Swink, Historic Commissioner
Graham Lewis, Housing Commissioner
Jim Lewis, Parks & Recreation Commissioner
Larry Blake, Planning Commissioner
Matt Warshawsky, Transportation Commissioner
Kerry KenCairn, Tree Commissioner
Pam Hammond, Chamber of Commerce Representative
Paul Steinle, sou Representative
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
David Wilkerson, Public Arts Commissioner
Rylan Heyerman, Neighborhood Representative
Mary Kay Michelsen, Neighborhood Representative
Ben Bellinson, Neighborhood Representative
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 9.2009 CROMAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
The minutes of September 9,2009 were approved as presented.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CROMAN MILL SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS AND
IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 18.53)
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained at tonight's meeting staff will review what occurred at recent Planning
Commission meetings and review the changes that have been proposed. He stated questions were handed out to the group
at the beginning of the meeting and he invited the Committee to send their thoughts and comments to staff after tonight's
meeting. Mr. Molnar briefly commented on the purpose of this Committee and clarified it is to suggest minor adjustments to
the plan, to provide a different viewpoint from the groups they represent, and for them to brief the other groups at their
respective meetings.
Staff reviewed the Croman plan elements that were discussed at the September 29th Planning Commission meeting. Senior
Planner Brandon Goldman commented on the Planning Commission's outline of questions and noted the Planning
Commission held a vote on whether the land use designations and how they are laid out is appropriate. He stated the
Planning Commission also reviewed the Land Use Matrix and what uses should be allowed in each of the overlay zones. Mr.
Goldman clarified the Planning Commission asked staff to look into providing flexibility to the child/daycare center provision to
allow it to be open to the public in case this is needed to keep it viable. He stated another change is the option for a
manufacturing plant to have a retail outlet to allow goods to be sold on site. Staff was also asked to look at whether public
offices should be a conditional use. Mr. Molnar noted if the Committee does not agree with any of these changes, or any of
the uses outlined in the matrix, now is the time to discuss it.
Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the City's conditional use permit process and clarified these uses would only be allowed
under certain circumstances. Comment was made questioning if these circumstances will be clearly defined since it may be
difficult to remember the intent 10 years from now when a proposal comes forward.
Staff continued their review of the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Goldman noted the Commission's discussion of
whether the southern portion of the site should be annexed, and what the implications might be. He stated there has been a
lot of concern that annexing this property would facilitate changes in the land uses quicker than desired; and the direction from
the Planning Commission was to not recommend annexing the southern piece at this time. Mr. Molnar clarified even though
we don't propose annexation at this point, this area would still be included in the plan. He stated the central boulevard
proposed to pass through the southern portion could still be built to City standards, and by not annexing it, this would allow the
farm and trailer park to remain until a proposal comes forward that is consistent with the Croman plan.
Mr. Goldman noted the rail and transit standards included in the proposed Design Standards, and commented on the rail spur
easement requirements. Mr. Molnar noted some Planning Commissioners expressed interest in increasing the compatible
industrial zone near the railroad, however there are grade and topography issues that would need to be addressed, and staff
also has concerns with moving the industrial area too close to the office corridor.
Mr. Goldman commented on the proposed residential overlay in the mixed-use and neighborhood center areas, and clarified
residential would be allowed, but 100% of the ground floor is reserved for commercial use. He stated the plan's guiding
principles are clear the intent is to provide for a large number of jobs, however, staff is looking into creating opportunities for
live-work situations. He stated as part of the special permitted use, upper floors could be developed for residential so long as
they meet the maximum number of residential units per acre that will be embedded in the ordinance. Comment was made
questioning if there will be any protection for businesses, and whether they could run a swing or graveyard shift without getting
opposition from the residential units in the area. Mr. Goldman noted where the residential would be located and clarified it is a
fair distance from the industrial areas at the southern end of the site. Mr. Molnar suggested a possible solution to complaints
could be requiring residential property owners to sign hold harmless agreements. Comment was made voicing support for this
and indicating if they are going to have a residential component, there should be a clear understanding what can and will
occur on that site.
Comment was made questioning the kennel and veterinary clinic provision, since these uses are not necessarily high
employment. Mr. Goldman clarified even though this is listed as an allowed use, the employee per acre component still has to
be complied with. He added the restrictions on outdoor running tracks would also limit a large kennel from locating on the
Croman site.
Mr. Goldman briefly reviewed the City's buildable land inventory and the industrial land available. He also commented on the
street alignment plan and clarified the Planning Commission asked staff to explore more of an east-west street layout to
address solar issues for the buildings. Mr. Goldman stated the next Croman Advisory Committee meeting will be on November
18th, and staff will bring forward an alternative street layout at that time. Mr. Molnar added while staff is currently exploring this
possibility, the intent it to keep the package as a whole intact. He stated the street layout may be more important for residential
than commercial, and noted it might be possible to address the issues through specific energy requirements for the buildings.
Mr. Molnar added the main problem for commercial buildings is keeping them cool, followed by lighting the interior. Mr.
Goldman noted in addition to changes in traffic flow, a new street layout would also create impacts on block widths.
Mr. Goldman stated the last element discussed by the Planning Commission was the alignment of Tolman Creek Road. He
stated the recommendation from the Planning Commission was for the plan to identify the objective of the central boulevard,
but to defer the final design to a later date after the TSP update is complete and the land has been acquired.
Mr. Molnar commented on the Design Standards and explained how they are structured. He stated it might appear that the
standards are lengthy, but 60% already exist and were pulled over into this section. He also noted the addition of a
sustainable standards section, which will address green streets, stormwater management, and parking. Commissioner
KenCairn commented on possibly allowing parking at the front of the building if it is attractive, incorporates green tactics, and
serves the public better at that location.
Mr. Goldman provided clarification on the proposed active edges and stated this will be required in the highest profile locations
where most of the traffic and activity is. He noted the proposed limitations on the number of access points off the main
boulevard and around the park area, and clarified this is consistent with the original Crandall & Arambula plan.
Mr. Goldman commented briefly on green streets, and stated this is not a new concept, but is relatively new to Ashland. He
explained this will allow stormwater runoff to stay on the site to the greatest extend possible, instead of flowing to the City's
water treatment plan. He added buildings will also be asked to capture stormwater and use it in their landscaping. Commission
KenCairn voiced concern with this provision and stated it is not feasible to collect stormwater for year-round irrigation of
landscaping unless you have a huge storage capacity. She added the plan could require storage, but not a percentage to be
used for landscaping. KenCairn suggested a possible matrix be developed if they want to successfully achieve this element.
REVIEW NEXT STEPS
Staff explained the next steps are for the Committee members to update their commissions and groups, and to be prepared to
form recommendations at the November 18th CAC meeting. The Committee chair and other members were also invited to
attend the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
The grant proposal for the central boulevard was noted, and Mr. Molnar explained this is going before the City Council in
November. He noted these types of grants (gas tax revenues) are quite competitive and are generally tied to job creation.
Staff noted the three questions handed out at the beginning of the meeting and asked that the members email their responses
to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant