HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-12 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
JANUARY 12, 2010
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
. March Study Session
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December 8, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-01292
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new
Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to
provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.61.042,
18.68.050,18.70.040,18.72.030,18.72.080, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100,
18.88.070,18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to include the
Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting
document to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Selection of 2010 Hearings Board Members
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
DECEMBER 8, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit
applications. She also requested they add review of the Planning Commission Goals to tonight's agenda.
Staff clarified the December 22nd Study Session will likely be canceled, unless pressing matters arise at tonight's meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. November 10, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioners Dotterrer/Miller m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed 8-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Adoption of Findings for PA #2009-01151, Clover Lane.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Rinaldi/Miller m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009-01151. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion Passed 8-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Croman Mill District Plan.
Commissioner Marsh provided a brief summary of the update that was given to the City Council on November 30th. During the
update, she noted the Council raised questions about employee density and enforcement, the location of office and industrial
land, and urban renewal districts. Council Liaison Navickas stated in general, the Council seemed positive and supportive of
what the Commission has done. Marsh stated there are still a few issues that are dangling and these will be addressed
tonight; with the public hearing scheduled for their first meeting in January.
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a short presentation to the Commission. She displayed images of the current plan
and of a possible revision to the street alignment, which adjusts the streets to within 150 of a true east-west axis. She stated
the revised alignment will allow for more long and narrow buildings with more southern exposure, which will minimize heat
gain in the summer. She added at this point staff does not see any major red flags with moving towards this revision; however
the block sizes will need to be evaluated and they will also need to look at possible impacts on existing structures. Staff
clarified topographical issues will also need to be evaluated. Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted staff just
received this revised version and will be better prepared to provide further analysis at their next meeting. He added as the
Commission prepares their recommendation to the City Council, they could consider including a recommendation for the
Council to adopt the revised street layout.
Commissioner Dotterrer requested an update on the status of the ODOT property and asked if someone is going to have to
purchase that property or if they are considering a swap. Mr. Molnar clarified staff has not discussed this with ODOT; however
OD01's property is fairly valuable, and if they sold it they could purchase property at a different location. He added the
Croman plan will still work even if this property stays under OD01's control.
In regards to the Tolman Creek Rd realignment, suggestion was made for the Commission to make it clear that a decision has
not yet been made and to solicit the public's input on this at the public hearing.
Staff provided clarification on the process from here on out. Mr. Molnar stated the most appropriate way to proceed is to make
a recommendation on the package that the Council has already seen, and if the Commission feels strongly that the revised
street layout should be considered, to issue this as a separate recommendation. He added the revised street layout is a
significant change, and before staff makes all the necessary map changes, they need to get direction/approval from the City
Council. Commissioner Marsh thanked staff for presenting the revised street layout, and several commissioners voiced their
support for the revision.
Mr. Molnar provided a summary of the solar setback issues. He stated as soon as they started planning for this site, staff
realized there would be conflicts with the Solar Setback Ordinance. Based on the current plan, the buildings would need to be
54 ft. apart to comply with the ordinance, and any additional heights obtained through LEED bonuses would further
exacerbate the problem. Mr. Molnar clarified the January meeting materials will include suggestions on how to adapt the
package to accommodate the solar ordinance. He added downtown Ashland is currently exempt from the Solar Ordinance
provisions, and exempting the Croman site might be an option to consider. Ms. Harris noted she has spoken with the City's
Conservation staff regarding this issue, and believes there will still be opportunities for solar even if the ordinance does not
apply.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman commented on the plan's employee density goals and provided input from other
communities who have tried to enforce employment numbers. He explained the cities of Canby and Milwaukie both tried to
apply employee density numbers in their industrial areas and have faced many problems with this concept. The City of Canby
is looking at removing this standard completely, and the City of Milwaukie cited several procedural issues they have faced in
terms of enforcement. Mr. Goldman stated some of the issues expressed by these two municipalities are: how to handle
phased developments, how to allocate employees per acre, how to accommodate for open space, difficulty in making an
assessment for new businesses, the definition of employee, and most notably they expressed difficultly in data collection and
reporting over time. Mr. Molnar noted there was quite a bit of discussion by the Council at their November 30th meeting and
staff has not found a strong way to deal with this. Comment was made suggesting they learn from what other cities have done,
and focus on uses that will achieve their employee density goals, rather than specifying employee numbers in the plan.
Staff was asked to comment on whether there might be any future liability against the City if the Croman property owners
receive the grant for the central boulevard, but are unable to meet the job creation numbers identified in the application. Ms.
Harris clarified the Croman plan is designed around fairly intense uses and the grant application was consistent with this. It
was noted the grant is highly competitive and is evaluated on job creation, and if the Croman owners were to receive it, the
City would not take on any liability. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the agreement that was reached with Brammo, and
stated the agreement allows the City to acquire and sell off property if any penalties are levied because of grant incompliance.
Comment was made questioning who will be responsible for paying for the infrastructure. Staff stated the infrastructure will
likely be put in by either the developer or the person who buys a particular lot, both ways are common. Mr. Molnar noted the
current property owners would like to build the central boulevard all at once, but phasing the installation is also an option. He
noted city standards state that adequate transportation must be provided, so this will need to occur before a building is
constructed. Mr. Molnar noted the City Council has also discussed the possibility of a finance district.
Commissioner Dotterrer asked if the City had an estimate of the infrastructure costs and questioned if the costs would make
development economically viable. Commissioner Blake noted this issue came up at the Croman Advisory Committee meeting
and concern was raised about whether this would pencil out. Comment was made that if the infrastructure costs are too high,
businesses might need to cut back on the number of jobs they can provide. Commissioner Marsh cited the November 30th
Council Study Session minutes and clarified a lot of thought is going into how this will be financed and does not believe this is
under their purview. Dotterrer disagreed and stated recommending a pan that may not be economically viable is something
the Commission needs to consider.
Mr. Goldman provided clarification on the residential buffer area and how this impacts heights in the neighborhood center. He
stated a residential buffer area was established that includes much of the neighborhood center; and one of the standards for
the residential buffer states the maximum height is equal to the height of the current underlying zone (which is 35 ft). He stated
the idea of the residential buffer cap on height is to create a transition from the adjoining residential districts outside the plan
area. Mr. Goldman stated if the Commission wants to encourage higher density housing in this area (above 35 ft), they may
want to consider adjusting the residential buffer area. He stated one option may be to keep the buffer in the areas adjacent to
the neighborhoods, but narrow it down to allow taller buildings in the center of the neighborhood center. Comment was made
that taller buildings may be needed to accommodate the transit facilities and this is closer to what was originally envisioned for
this area.
Request was made for staff to clarify whether the FAA has provided input on the proposed building heights. Staff clarified they
are going through the formal process of submitting potential heights to find out what the FAA's mitigation requirement will be.
Commissioner Miller expressed her concern with residential density. She stated 60-units per acre are very small units and
asked if this is the type of housing that is wanted and needed in Ashland. Mr. Molnar noted the needs analysis did show a
substantial need for smaller units, and while 60-units per acre is the maximum, someone could develop a lesser number of
units per acre. He stated the goal is to encourage smaller units, but clarified 60 is not the requirement, only the maximum.
Commissioner Blake commented briefly on the sustainability standards and suggested they provide potential developers a
range of options and let them choose which ones they want to incorporate (such as 6 out of 10).
Commissioner Marsh stated their next meeting on this topic will be the public hearing scheduled for January 12, 2010 and
noted the importance of getting the public's input on these issues.
B. Update on Timetable Extension and Timetable Tolling Ordinances.
Commissioner Rinaldi recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Molnar provided some background on the two issues. He stated this started with the City Council and they forwarded it to
the Planning Commission to get their feedback. The issues then went back to Council where they voted to send both items
back to the Planning Commission to draft an ordinance and take it through the standard process. Mr. Molnar stated the
Planning Commission's hearing on this ordinance will likely be in late January or at their first meeting in February.
In terms of the recession extension, Mr. Molnar explained three other communities in Oregon have adopted similar provisions.
The direction from the City Council was for the Planning Commission to consider an extension, but to apply criteria to it.
Mr. Goldman commented on the recession extension provision and listed the following questions that need to be answered
before staff can draft an ordinance: 1) Who is eligible (all projects that have not allowed approval to lapse or all projects during
a specific timeframe regardless of whether approval has expired), 2) How long should the extension be for (it was noted 18-
months has been suggested), and 3) What process should they use to evaluate requests. Mr. Goldman noted Council felt
applications should be subject to a review process that is consistent with the current 18-month extension process.
Mr. Goldman stated the provision on appeal tolling is a separate issue and deals with applications that are approved by the
City, but are then appealed to a higher court. After an application is approved, the applicant has 12-months to commence
construction. The question before the Commission is whether that 12-month period should be put on hold until a decision is
made on the appeal.
Philip Lang/758 B StreetlStated this is a bad proposal and should be disregarded. Mr. Lang questioned if the applications
would be reviewed again to ensure compliance with current codes, and if so, what type of review will be done and who will pay
for the costs. He also commented on who would benefit from this relief and stated this is essentially a subsidy to speculative
developers. Mr. Lang stated this proposal would cost taxpayer money and feels it is bad public policy.
Commissioner Marsh requested they separate their discussions on the two provisions and asked for the commission's input
on the questions posed by staff.
Appeal Tolling
Question: Should a maximum period be established?
Comment was made that an appeal is out of the applicant's control and it does not serve any purpose to apply a maximum
period. It was added the odds of an appeal taking several years are pretty small. Opposing comment was made that the
extension should not be open ended. Comment was made that the application should be exempted for the full length of the
appeal, or else there is no point in passing this provision.
Timetable (Recession) Extension
Question: Who should be eliaible?
Comment was made that reaching back to 2006 is going too far, and they should start from when the economy really
started to turn bad in mid-2007 (possible start date of 7/1/07). Additional suggestion was made for them to include
applications from this date up until mid-2009. Comment was made that applicants should have been aware that the bubble
was about to burst and voicing opposition to this provision. Commissioner Marsh stated it is clear they are not going to
have a consensus and asked if there are specific pieces of input they have for staff in preparing the ordinance. Opinion
was given that only applications that are active or at least communicating with staff should be eligible.
Question: What lenqth is appropriate?
No concern was expressed with the proposed 18-month extension length.
Question: What process and criteria should reauests be evaluated aaainst?
Comment was made voicing support for keeping the process the same as the current 18-month extension. Additional
comment was made supporting the current process and to not require applicants to provide proof that financing had been
denied.
Commission Marsh clarified these two provisions will come back to the Commission for further discussion and a formal public
hearing.
Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer mls to extend meeting past 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
C. Planning Commission Goals
Commissioner Marsh noted the City Council will be holding their annual goal setting on January 24,2010 and stated unless
the Commission has any changes, the goals that were drafted at their annual retreat will be forwarded to the Council:
1 . Adopt Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan
2. Transportation Planning - TSP.
Transit and Pedestrian Oriented Development (TOO) Overlay.
3. Sustainable Land Use Codes.
Solar Orientation, Green Street Standards, and Stormwater Management.
4. Railroad District Parking Management Plan.
5. Arterial Setbacks
Evaluate existing standards for Ashland Street, E. Main Street, Siskiyou Blvd, and N. Main Street.
Commissioner Marsh stated this is an ambitious list, but believes 1-3 are achievable in the next year. She added this list will
be sent off to the Council for consideration during their goal setting process.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Croman Mill District
PA #2009-01292
I n 2008, a planning process including a series of
public workshops were held which resulted in the
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan.
Subsequently, the City Council initiated the creation
of Land Use regulations to guide the redevelopment of
the former Croman Mill Site. Throughout 2009, the
City Planning Commission and the Croman Advisory
Committee have worked to refine the Redevelopment
Plan to achieve the identified project goals including
maximizing opportunities for business development
and employment growth, analyzing potential
transportation connections from within the area to the
city wide transportation system, determining
appropriate land uses for the area, and incorporating
sustainable and energy efficient development
practices.
A Planning Commission Public Hearing is
scheduled for 7:00pm, Tuesday January Ith 2010 at
the Ashland Civic located at 1175 East Main Street.
The public is invited to attend.
The draft design standards and ordinances, and all
previous meeting materials, are available on the City
of Ashland website at
Questions or comments?
Contact Bill Molnar, Community Development Director, at
541.552.2042 / or Maria Harris,
Planning Manager, at 541.552.2045 /
This project is sponsored by the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM)
Program and the City of Ashland Community Development Department.
PLANNING ACTION:
APPLICANT:
DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill,
to amend multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman
Mill (ALUO 18.08,18.12.020,18.61.042,18.68.050, 18.68.050, 18.70.040, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.110, 18.72.120,
18.72.140,18.72.180,18.84.100,18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and
Zoning Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting
document to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
Notice is hereby given that PUBLIC HEARINGS on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be
held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION and the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the meeting dates shown above. The
meetings will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection
concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to
specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the
applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this
Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at
no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to
the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,
Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair
shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a
continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after
the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
18.108.060 (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
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 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 (Le. 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.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
This is to notify you that the City of Ashland has proposed a land use regulation that may affect the
permissible uses of your property and other properties. As a result of the completion of a
redevelopment plan for the former Croman Mill site and it's immediate vicinity, the City of Ashland
has proposed a new chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill , and a
new section of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section VIII - Croman Mill District
Standards. The City has determined that adoption of this proposed ordinance and Site Design and
Use Standards may affect the permissible uses of your property, and may change the value of your
property. This notice, including the above statements, is required by Oregon state law.
January 12. 2010 Plannina Commission Public Hearina: The purpose of the hearing is to take
public testimony and for the Planning Commission to discuss and deliberate on the proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning maps, and to the land use ordinance including
establishment of new land use designations and development standards for the Croman Mill zoning
district (Planning Action #2009-01292). The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to
the City Council on the adoption of the new chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter
18.53 Croman Mill, and a new section of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section VIII -
Croman Mill District Standards. The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic
Center Council Chambers located at 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR.
March 2. 2010 City Council Public Hearina: The purpose of the hearing is to take public testimony
and for the City Council to discuss and deliberate on the proposed amendments. The City Council
makes the final decision on the adoption of the new chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance,
Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, and a new section of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section
VIII - Croman Mill District Standards. The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland
Civic Center Council Chambers located at 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR.
The proposed ordinance, standards and Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan are available for
review online at www.ashland.or.us/croman. and on file at the City of Ashland Department of
Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. Copies of the ordinance and file information are available for purchase if requested. For
additional information concerning this ordinance, call the Ashland Planning Department at 541-488-
5305.
Oral and written public testimony, regarding this matter will be accepted at the public hearing on
January 12, 2010 and March 2, 2010. Written statements are encouraged and may be submitted
prior to the hearing date. Mail written comments to Maria Harris, Planning Manager, City of Ashland
Department of Community Development, 20 E. Main St., Ashland OR 97520, via FAX at 541-552-
2050, or via E-mail at Failure to raise an issue in person or in writing prior to
the close of the public hearing with sufficient specificity to provide the reviewing bodies opportunity to
respond to the issue may preclude your opportunity for appeal on that issue.
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 number 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 ).
(turn over for summary page 2)
Summary of Proposed
Croman Mill District Ordinance
The Croman Mill District Redevelopment Plan, implementing land use ordinances and
standards have been drafted to address the future development of Ashland's largest,
unused parcel of land within the city limits. Located on Mistletoe Road east of Tolman
Creek Road, the site is bounded by the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Siskiyou
Boulevard, Mistletoe Road, and Interstate 1-5. This approximately 65-acre site is
currently zoned to allow a wide range of business and industries and to provide a
variety of employment opportunities.
In January, March, June and August of 2008, a series of Public Workshops and Study
Sessions were conducted as part of the master plan development. The first workshop
in January 2008 focused on identification of issues and concerns, as well as the
development of guiding principles for the redevelopment plan. The Croman Mill Site
Redevelopment Plan was completed at the end of December 2008 as is available
online at www.ashland.or.us/croman.
The City Council initiated the process for adopting the plan into the Ashland's
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance on February 17, 2009. Implementation
of the plan requires revisions to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps,
and to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance such as the creation of new zoning overlay
designations for the Croman Mill planning area, including specific design standards to
guide and direct both public and private improvements.
The Croman Mill (CM) zoning district is established with the purpose of promoting
family-wage jobs, professional office and manufacturing commerce, neighborhoods-
oriented businesses, mixed-use projects and community services in a manner that
enhances property values by providing transportation options, preserving significant
open spaces and natural features while minimizing the impact on natural resources
through site planning and building design. The proposed ordinance delineates
appropriate land uses and development standards for the CM zone.
The proposed ordinance, Croman Mill District Site Design and Use Standards, maps,
and other related information are available for review online at
and on file at the City of Ashland Department of
Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. Copies of the ordinance and file information are available for purchase if
requested. For additional information concerning this ordinance, call the Ashland
Planning Department at 541-488-5305.
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
January 12, 2010
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-01292
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
LOCATION: Croman Mill District Boundary
ZONE DESIGNATION: City of Ashland M-1, E-1, R-1-5 and Jackson County RR-5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City of Ashland Industrial, Employment, Single-Family
Residential and Jackson County Rural Residential
Lands
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18.52 M-1 Industrial District, Chapter 18.40 Employment
District, Chapter 18.20 Single-Family Residential District, Chapter
18.108 Procedures
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
Goal 9 - Economic Development
OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS): Chapter 197 - Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Coordination
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR): 660-009 Economic Development
REQUEST: To amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to include the
Croman Mill District, to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to include a new
Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, to amend Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards to include a
new Section VIII -Croman Mill District Standards, to amend multiple chapters of the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO
18.08, 18.12, 18.61, 18.68, 18.70, 18.72, 18.84, 18.88, 18.106), and to adopt the Croman Mill
Site Redevelopment Plan as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of
the Oregon Revised Statues requires a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically,
plans and implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and
construction are permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans.
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 1 of 12
Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development requires cities and
counties to address providing adequate opportunities for a variety of economic
activities for residents. As a result, cities in Oregon are required to provide an
adequate land supply for economic development and employment growth.
Specifically, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-009 requires cities to
periodically conduct an Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA). The EOA must
include identification of economic trends, identification of potential growth industries
in the planning area, employment projections, an inventory of vacant and developed
lands for industrial and employment uses and identification of the number of sites
needed to accommodate expected employment growth.
In December 2001, the Ashland Planning Commission denied an application for the
Croman Mill property for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Industrial to
Employment, Health Care Services, Multi-Family Residential, Suburban Residential
and Single Family-Residential, and a Zoning Map amendment from M-l to E-l, HC,
R-2, R-1-3.5 and R-1-7.5 (PA 2001-103). The denial was based on findings that the
application failed to demonstrate that there was a significant surplus of employment
lands within the urban growth boundary (UGH) and that a public need existed to
dramatically reduce the City's inventory of land intended to accommodate existing
and future employment.
In 2006, the Community Development Department applied for and received a grant
from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for an
Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). The EOA was completed in April 2007.
The EOA identifies a need to retain the Croman Mill site for industrial and
employment uses to meet proj ected employment growth, and recommended
developing a master plan for the redevelopment of the site. The EOA suggests
exploring the concept of developing the Croman Mill site as an "eco-industrial park"
to attract industries providing family wage jobs, that are non-polluting, that use
comparatively little water and that are compatible with Ashland's community values.
The Croman Mill site is identified as an ideal location for employment uses for a
variety of reasons including the ability to accommodate large parcels of up to ten
acres, the proximity to the interstate and the railroad line, the ability to accommodate
the needs of existing Ashland businesses that may wish to relocate within the city,
and the ability to attract new businesses.
In 2007, the Community Development Department applied for a Transportation and
Growth Management (TGM) grant to prepare a master plan for the Croman Mill site.
The TGM program is a joint program of the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT).
The City of Ashland received the TGM grant and Crandall Arambula, an urban
design and architecture firm, was selected to prepare the draft plan. Project work
began in December 2007, and the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan was
completed at the end of December 2008. The 2008 planning process involved three
public workshops, two joint Planning Commission and City Council study sessions
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 2 of 12
and numerous stakeholder meetings with property owners, nearby residents and
government agency representatives.
In January, March, June and August of 2008, a series of public workshops and study
sessions were conducted as part of the master plan development. The first workshop
in January 2008 focused on identification of issues and concerns, as well as the
development of goals and objectives for the redevelopment plan. After the January
workshop, four plan options were developed and presented at the March workshops.
In June and August 2008, study sessions were held with the Ashland City Council
and Planning Commission to further revise the plan concept. Subsequently, the
consultant prepared the draft Redevelopment Plan as required by the state grant.
The issues and opportunities identified during the first public workshop and key
participants meetings were used to create the proj ect goals and obj ectives as listed
below (page 10 of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, December 2008).
Circulation
o Create a local street network that provides balanced circulation for pedestrian, bikes,
auto/truck and transit and is well connected to existing streets
o Improve visibility and identity for the study area
o Mitigate impacts of auto and truck traffic on Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street
o Preserve rail access for commuters, passengers and freight
o Improve safety for autos and pedestrians of key intersection sand rail crossings
o Provide for non-motorized trails linked to existing trails and parks systems
o Create safe routes to Bellview School
o Manage traffic impacts on Exit 14 and Ashland Street
Land Use
o Provide for a large number of family wage jobs
o Allow for light industrial and manufacturing
o Create parcels with the flexibility to support local new small business, existing
business expansion and large employers
o Consider a range of housing options
o Allow for a mix of uses
o Do not create uses that compete with downtown
o Incorporate a public gathering space
o Preserve streams and wetlands
Policies and Regulations
o Recommend code changes to be adopted by the City of Ashland
o Recommend commitment of funds for specific infrastructure improvements
o Mandate sustainable and green development codes
o Develop standards for "dark skies"
In February 2009, the City Council directed staff to work with the Planning
Commission to begin the process of adopting the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 3 of 12
Plan by preparing the necessary accompanying Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) and Comprehensive Plan amendments.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The Croman Mill District boundary encompasses approximately 95 acres, and is
bound by the railroad right-of-way to the north and east, Tolman Creek Road and
Hamilton Creek to the west and Siskiyou Boulevard to the south. The bulk of the
property is comprised of the Croman Mill site (approximately 64 acres), which is the
largest, unused parcel of land in the city limits. The Croman Mill site is centrally
located in the plan area, between Mistletoe Road and the railroad right-of-way. The
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance yard located south of the
intersection of Mistletoe and Tolman Creek, as well as some additional properties to
the west of Mistletoe Road and near the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and
Crowson Road area also included in the plan area.
The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments, as well as
additions and revisions to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to implement
the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The proposed implementation plan
includes revising the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to create a new
zoning designation for the Croman Mill District. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) will be revised to include a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill, and Ashland's
Site Design and Use Standards amended to include a new Section VIII-Croman Mill
District Standards to guide and direct both public and private improvements.
Additionally, Chapter 18 will be amended in multiple chapters to provide consistency
with the new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill. Finally, the Croman Mill Site
Redevelopment Plan will be adopted as a supporting document to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed documents in the implementation plan, with the
exception of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, are included in this packet.
The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan from December 2008 was distributed to
the Planning Commission in March 2009, and will not be redistributed. For
reference, the components of the proposal are outlined below.
Croman Mill District Implementation Plan
1. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
o revise current Comprehensive Plan Map designations of Industrial,
Employment and Single-Family to Croman Mill District
o revise current Zoning Map designations of M-1, E-1 and R-1 to CM
2. Legislative Amendments
o add a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 4 of 12
o add a new Section VIII-Croman Mill District Standards
o Misc. Chapter 18 Amendments
o adopt Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan as supporting document to
Ashland Comprehensive Plan
II. Proiect Impact
A. Approval Process and Noticing
The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments, as well as
additions and revisions to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) in an effort to
implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The Planning Commission
makes a recommendation on the package of amendments, and the City Council makes
the final decision.
Approximately 250 written notices were mailed regarding the January 12 Planning
Commission and March 2 City Council public hearings (see attached notice). The
notice area and list includes property owners in and surrounding the Croman Mill
District boundary, as well as the participants from the Croman Mill Site
Redevelopment Plan process. Additionally, the Croman Advisory Commission was
sent a public hearing notice. Also, a "Measure 56" notice, which is required by state
law and notifies property owners that a legislative change is proposed which may
affect the permissible uses and value of the their property, was mailed to 40 property
owners within the district boundary. A notice was published in the newspaper as
required by Chapter 18.108, as well as a meeting announcement is posted on the
project web page www.ashland.oLus/croman.
The Transportation Commission is continuing their review of the Croman Mill
District implementation plan at their upcoming January 21, 2010 meeting. The
Transportation Commission has requested that the Planning Commission delay the
final recommendation until February, so that the Transportation Commission has an
opportunity to submit comments.
B. Proposal Impact
The attached maps show the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations
and the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for the properties
within the district.
The area within the boundary of the proposed Croman Mill District including the
former Croman Mill site is primarily zoned M-l Industrial, with some additional
areas ofE-l Employment and R-l Single Family. Additionally, the area adjacent to
Siskiyou Boulevard and Crowson Road is within the Croman Mill District boundary
and in the Ashland urban growth boundary (UGH), but is outside the city limits - this
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 5 of 12
area is designated Employment in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and is currently
zoned Jackson County RR-5 Rural Residential.
The title of the M-l Industrial zoning is somewhat misleading because the zoning
district allows a wide range of commercial and employment uses including offices,
retail, personal services, restaurants, nightclubs and bars, theaters, and hotels and
motels in addition to those uses typically associated with industrial areas such as
manufacturing, processing, assembling, mini-warehouses, outside storage of
merchandise and raw materials, junkyard and auto wrecking yards, and concrete or
asphalt batch or mixing plants. In short, the M -1 Industrial zoning district includes
the uses that are allowed in the C-l Commercial and E-l Employment zoning
districts.
The proposed Croman Mill District includes five zoning overlays. Again, the bulk of
the district is the Croman Mill Site which would be divided between CI Compatible
Industrial an OE Office Employment. Office uses area focused in the northern half of
the district and manufacturing uses are concentrated in the southern half of the district
in an effort to create distinct identities for each area and to maintain freight rail access
industrial area.
The ODOT maintenance yard at the northwest corner of the plan area would be NC
Neighborhood Commercial, a mixed-use area targeted at small scale neighborhood
serving commercial uses and residential units. There are two MU Mixed Use areas
located between Hamilton Creek and Mistletoe Road and surrounding the south
entrance on Siskiyou Boulevard. These areas are intended as transitions from the
existing residential areas to the west and south, and would allow a mix of uses
including office, light manufacturing and residential uses. The residential uses in the
NC Neighborhood Commercial and MU Mixed Use overlays are limited to upper
floors of the buildings. Finally, there is an OS Open Space/Conservation Overlay
which includes the areas along Hamilton Creek, the Central Park, and the pond and
creek in the southeast portion of the district.
The primary impact of the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments is the
redistribution of allowed uses in the district boundary, and the elimination of land-
intensive uses with low employment densities such as mini-warehouses, outside
storage, and concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants. Professional offices are
targeted for the OE Office Employment zone and manufacturing and assembly is the
focus of the CI Compatible Industrial zone, with provisions to allow for some cross-
over manufacturing and offices associated with the primary use of the zone. Stores,
restaurants and shops of a neighborhood scale are located in the NC Neighborhood,
and allowed throughout the OE Office Employment and CI Compatible Industrial
zones at an even smaller scale. The MU Mixed Use areas allow both the office and
manufacturing and assembly uses. With the exception of the residential uses allowed
in the NC Neighborhood Commercial and MU Mixed Use zoning overlays, the uses
included in the Croman Mill District are allowed under the current M -1 Industrial and
E-l Employment zoning.
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 6 of 12
The second significant area of change in land uses involves the ODOT maintenance
yard and the two MU Mixed Use areas. The ODOT maintenance yard is currently
zoned R-1-5 Single-Family Residential and the proposed redevelopment plan adds
allowances for neighborhood-oriented commercial uses as well as increases the
residential density from 4.5 units per acre to 30 units per acre. The two MU Mixed
Use areas are currently included in the E-l Employment designation. The proposed
zoning allows offices and manufacturing uses similar to the E-l zoning district, but
adds the ability to have residential limits in conjunction with a permitted employment
use. Currently, residential units are not permitted in the area between Hamilton
Creek and Mistletoe Road. The residential uses in the NC Neighborhood
Commercial and MU Mixed Use overlays are limited to upper floors of the buildings,
and require non-residential uses in the ground floor.
A minor and major amendment process is included in the proposed Chapter 18.53
CM Croman Mill, which will be the ordinance chapter governing the Croman Mill
District. The amendment process provides flexibility to address unforeseen changes
in conditions such as shifts in demand for types of uses, and physical challenges in
individual developments. Major amendments provide for a change in a land use
overlay, modification of the street layout plan or other transportation facility, a
change in the applicable standards, and any other changes not listed. Minor
amendments include shifting streets and other transportation facilities, changes
related to street trees, street furniture fencing or signage, change in street design,
modification of driveway access locations and changes in dimensional standard
requirements not including building height and residential density.
The planning application process for development proposals in the Croman Mill
District is relatively unchanged. Under the current E-l and M -1 zoning, new
buildings, additions or expansions require Site Review approval in accordance with
Chapter 18.72. The same Site Review process will be apply to new buildings,
additions or expansions in the CM zoning overlays.
The primary difference in the review of the applications in the Croman Mill District
will be the applicable Site Design and Use Standards. Currently, new construction in
the E-l and M-l zoning districts is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards. Basic
Site Review is the entry level of site review focusing on site layout, building
orientation and landscaping requirements, and is currently in place in areas such as
Hersey Street, Jefferson Avenue ad Benson Way. In the Croman Mill District, new
construction would be subject to the Croman Mill District Standards. Structures in
the CI Compatible Industrial will be subject to a similar level of review as Basic Site
Review, and structures adjacent to the Active Edge Streets (i.e. central boulevard and
surrounding the central park) and in the OE Office Employment, NC Neighborhood
Commercial and MU Mixed Use overlays will be subject to a level of review similar
to the Detail Site Review zone. The Detail Site Review Zone is a higher level of site
review than Basic Site Review, and includes further requirements for orientation and
scale of buildings, streetscape and building materials. The Detail Site Review Zone
is currently in place in other areas of Ashland such as parts of Siskiyou Boulevard,
Ashland Street, A Street, the downtown and the railroad property (i.e. Clear Creek
Drive, Russell Drive). Additional Green Development Standards addressing items
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 7 of 12
such as the use of pervious paving, bioswales and reducing potable water use will
apply throughout the Croman Mill District.
The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan includes a transportation framework that
is implemented by the Croman Mill District Standards as well as the Transportation
System Plan (TSP). The transportation framework includes a street network, a
pedestrian and bicycle framework, a transit plan including bus service and commuter
rail, a parking plan and a freight rail component. The design and general location of
the street network is addressed by the street standards section of the Croman Mill
District Standards, although the final design and engineering would be at the time of
the actual development. The pedestrian and bicycle framework includes facilities
incorporated into the streets, as well as off-road multi-use paths including the
extension of the Central Ashland Bike Path adjacent to the railroad tracks, the
establishment of a path along Hamilton Creek and across the creek connecting to the
residential neighborhood to the west, and establishment of a path across the southern
pond and creek area connecting to the Central Ashland Bike Path. The transit
framework includes commuter rail platforms adjacent to the NC Neighborhood
Center overlay area and in a central location, and a proposed bus route on the central
boulevard. A parking and ride area is planned near the Neighborhood Center and a
parking structure to the northeast of the Central Park. A freight rail spur location is
delineated on the eastern boundary of the CI Compatible Industrial zoning overlay.
C. Discussion Items
Latest Revisions
The attached Chapter 18.53 and the Croman Mill District Standards have been
revised to include items the Planning Commission has discussed over the past several
months. A summary of the highlights of the most recent changes follows.
o Properties Outside District Boundary - The properties to the north of the
OE Office Employment zone and to the east of the central boulevard (i.e.
new office building and mini-storage complex) were not included in the
original Croman Mill District boundary. The front of the property along
the central boulevard is now included in the OE Office Employment
zoning overlay.
o Limited Outdoor Storage - Limited outdoor storage was added as a special
permitted use in CI Compatible Industrial and OE Office Employment
zoning overlays.
o Solar Setback Exemption - The Croman Mill District is exempted from
the solar access setback in Chapter 18.70.
o Employment Density - The employment density was removed from the
Dimensional Standards Table as a requirement, and added as a
recommendation in the Croman Mill District Standards.
o Phasing of Central Boulevard - A description with diagrams of the phased
build out of the Central Boulevard including the realignment of the
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 8 of 12
intersection with Tolman Creek Road was added to the Croman Mill
District Standards Street Standards.
o Accessway Cross Section Option - A narrower pedestrian and bicycle
only option was added for the accessway street classification.
o Relaxed Design Standards for CI Compatible Industrial - The design
standards have been divided into to two categories - those that apply to
the CI Compatible Industrial overlay, and those that apply to the
Properties on the Active Edge Streets (i.e. central boulevard and
surrounding the central park) and the NC Neighborhood Commercial, MU
Mixed Use and OE Office Employment overlays. The result is that the CI
Compatible Industrial properties, except those located on the Active Edge
Streets, will be subject to standards comparable to Basic Site Review.
Basic Site Review is the entry level of site review focusing on site layout,
building orientation and landscaping requirements, and is currently in
place in areas such as Hersey St., Jefferson Avenue and Benson Way. The
remaining areas will be subj ect to a higher level of design review that is
comparable to the Detail Site Review zone. The Detail Site Review
includes additional requirements for orientation and scale of buildings,
streetscape and building materials. The Detail Site Review Zone is
currently in place in other areas of Ashland such as parts of Siskiyou
Boulevard, Ashland Street, A Street, the downtown and the railroad
property (i.e. Clear Creek Drive, Russell Drive).
o Residential and Structured Parking and Residential Bonus - The
Performance Bonus section was expanded to include a height bonus for
the provision of structured parking within a building, and a residential
density bonus for affordable housing units.
On-2oim! Discussion Items
At the December 8 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised east-west
street orientation prepared by Crandall Arambula. Also discussed was the possible
realignment of the central boulevard in a northerly direction to avoid buildings.
These two items have been combined and are shown on the attached East-West
Orientation Alternative map.
East-West Orientation Alternative:
In reviewing the east-west street orientation, staff identified three items for Planning
Commission consideration - the acreage, building location conflicts and minimum lot
sizes in the CI Compatible Industrial zoning overlay.
In terms of the acreage analysis, there is no significant change in the acreage assigned
to the individual overlay zones from the 1.12.10 draft of the plan maps to the east-
west alternative (see table below).
Croman Mill District Acreages by Zoning Overlay
Zoning Overlay 2008 Croman Mill Site January 12,2010 Draft East-West Alternative
Redevelopment Plan
Compatible Industrial (CI) 42.3 32.5 31.2
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 9 of 12
Office Employment (OE) 40.2 33 33.8
Neighborhood Center (NC) 5.8 5.9 6
Mixed Use (MU) 0 16 16.5
Open Space/Conservation (OS) 8.3 9.2 8.9
Total 96.6 96.6 96.4
The streets in the east-west alternative, including the central boulevard, do appear to
go through some of the metal buildings on the former Croman Mill site. These
appear to be shed structures associated with the former lumber mill.
The revised east-west street network results in some reduced block sizes so that
blocks which previously contained roughly two acres are reduced to approximately
1.5 acres. As a result, if the Planning Commission decides to recommend the east-
west alternative to the City Council, staff recommends reducing the minimum lot size
in the CI Compatible Industrial zoning overlay from 40,000 to 30,000 square feet.
This will allow the smallest blocks in the CI Compatible Industrial overlay to be
divided into two lots.
Location of the Central Boulevard:
The northern section of the central boulevard has been redrawn in the East-West
Street Alternative Map so that it avoids going through existing buildings and
properties located on Mistletoe Road near Hamilton Creek. It appears there may be
issues with this configuration in terms of adequate width for the street as well as the
feasibility or practicality of the turning radius for larger vehicles such as trucks.
Given that the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan is a long-range plan and is at a
conceptual level, it is not feasible to fully investigate the street design and location at
this time. Staff suggests including the alternative location for the northern section of
the central boulevard as a potential option in the Croman Mill District Standards.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
18.108.060 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
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 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
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 10of12
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.
18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make
other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other
changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within
the authority of the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application
of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the
proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days
after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed
amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning
Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first
considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public
hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold
a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief
description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered
by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such
request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission,
new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Ashland is fortunate to have an area such as the former Croman Mill site within the city
which can be redeveloped to address future employment needs of the community for the
next 20 year planning period. The master planning efforts insure that the area will
develop into a viable employment center, as well as in a manner which is consistent with
the community's values and concerns.
The 2008 planning process which resulted in the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
involved a wide variety of participants including the general public, property owners and
key participants including neighborhood representatives, government agencies and local
interest groups. Staff believes the revisions that have been made in the development of
the implementation package have refined and improved the redevelopment plan, and are
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 11 of 12
largely consistent with the original plan goals and objectives. Staff recommends
approval of the map and ordinance amendments to implement the Croman Mill Site
Redevelopment Plan.
Planning Action P A #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report mh
Page 12of12
Croman Mill District Implementation Plan
o Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
Amendments
o Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill
o Croman Mill District Standards
o Misc. Chapter 18 Revisions
-1:,
",' """"""""
,;~O
Proposed Zoning Overlay Designations
- -
o 1625325
650
Feet
975 1,300
compatable industrial (CM-CI)
mixed-use (CM-MU)
neighborhood center (CM-NC)
Note: Areas outside the City Limits would retain their
current County zoning designations until annexation.
office employment (CM-OE)
openspace (CM-OS)
1/12/2009
Croman Mill District Vicinity
- -
o 155 310
620
Zoning Designtations
C-1
C-1-D
E-1
M-1
NM
R-3
R-1-5
R-1-7.5
R-2
-"
C~C,~"~"'~C,~"~"'~"'/'
Feet
930 1,240
1/12/2009
Croman Mill District Vicinity
Ashland Comprehensive
Plan Designations
- -
o 155 310
620
-"
C~C,~"~"'~C,~"~"'~"'/'
Feet
930 1,240
CROMAN MILL
DISTRICT PLAN
(new designations)
Croman District
Health Care
low Density Residential
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
High Density Residential
Suburban Residential
Single Famiily Residential Reserve
North Mountain Plan
Airport
Sotuhern Oregon University
Woodland
Commercial
Downtown
Employment
Industrial
1/12/2009
Croman Mill District Vicinity
-"
C~C,~"~"'~C,~"~"'~"'/'
- -
o 155 310
620
930
Feet
1,240
Ashland Comprehensive
Plan Designations
Downtown
low Density Residential
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
High Density Residential
Suburban Residential
Single Famiily Residential Reserve
North Mountain Plan
Commercial
Employment
Industrial
Airport
Sotuhern Oregon University
Woodland
Health Care
1/12/2009
CHAPTER 18.53
CM CROMAN MILL
SECTIONS:
18.53.010
18.53.020
18.53.030
18.53.040
18.53.050
18.53.060
18.53.070
Purpose
General Requirements
Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards
Use Regulations
Dimensional Regulations
Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay
Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance
SECTION 18.53.010 Purpose
The purpose of this section is to implement the Groman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The district
is designed to provide an environment suitable for employment, recreation, and living. The GM
zoning district is a blueprint for promoting family-wage jobs, professional office and manufacturing
commerce, neighborhood-oriented businesses, mixed-use projects and community services in a
manner that enhances property values by providing transportation options and preserving
significant open spaces while minimizing the impact on natural resources through site and building
design.
SECTION 18.53.020 General Requirements
A. Conformance with the Croman Mill District Plan
Land uses and development, including buildings, parking areas, streets, bicycle and pedestrian
access ways, multi-use paths and open spaces shall be located in accordance with those
shown on the Groman Mill District Plan maps adopted by ordinance
B. Major and minor amendments to the Croman Mill District Plan shall comply with the
following procedures:
1. Major and Minor Amendments.
a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) A change in the land use overlay.
(2) A modification to the street layout plan that necessitates a street or other
transportation facility to be eliminated or located in a manner inconsistent with the
Groman Mill District Plan.
(3) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions.
b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) A change in the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or
other transportation facility to be shifted more than 25 feet in any direction, as long
Ch. 18.53
Draft 1.12.10
Page 1
as the change maintains the connectivity established by the Croman Mill District
Plan.
(2) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing, or signage.
(3) A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill
District Standards.
(4) A modification of a driveway access location in a manner inconsistent with the
Croman Mill District Standards.
(5) A site layout, landscaping or building design which is inconsistent with the Croman
Mill District Standards.
(6) A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 18.53.060, but not
including height and residential density.
2. Major Amendment Type II - Approval Procedure
A major amendment to the Croman Mill District Plan is subject to a public hearing and
decision under a Type II Procedure. A major amendment may be approved upon the
hearing authority finding that:
a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established by the district
plan, or the proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints
evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock
outcroppings, wetlands, or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property
lines between project boundaries;
b. The proposed modification furthers the design, circulation and access concepts
advocated by the district plan; and
c. The proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose and objectives of
the district plan.
3. Minor Amendment Type I Procedure
A minor amendment to the Croman Mill District Plan is subject to an administrative
decision under the Type I Procedure. Minor amendments shall not be subject to the
Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards of Chapter 18.72. A minor
amendment may be approved upon finding that granting the approval will result in a
development design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose and objectives of
the district plan.
SECTION 18.53.030 Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards
A. Ashland Local Street Standards
The design and construction of streets and public improvements shall be in accordance with
Ashland's Local Street Standards, except as otherwise permitted for the following facilities
within the Croman Mill District:
a. Central Boulevard
b. Tolman Creek Road Realignment
c. Local Streets
d. Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path
e. Central Bike Path
Ch. 18.53
Draft 1.12.10
Page 2
f. Multi-use Path
g. Accessways
B. Site Design and Use Standards - Croman Mill District
New development shall be designed and constructed consistent with Chapter 18.72 Site
Design Review, and Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards, Section VIII- Croman Mill
District Standards.
SECTION 18.53.040 Use Regulations
A. Generally
Uses are permitted, special permitted or conditional uses in the Croman Mill District as listed in
the Land Use Table.
stores, restaurants, and shops less than 3,000 sq.ft., excluding
fuel sales, automobile sales and repair
limited stores, restaurants, and shops
professional, financial, business, and medical offices
administrative or research and development establishments
office in conjunction with a permitted use
child or day care centers
fitness, recreational sports, gym or athletic club
ancillary employee services (e.g. cafeteria, fitness area)
kennels (indoor) and veterinary clinics
motion picture, television or radio broadcasting studios
temporary uses
..
..
..
..
manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, or packaging
manufacture of food products without rendering fats or oils
manufacture, assembly, fabrication or packaging in conjunction
with office use
limited manufacturing affiliated with a retail use
rail freight loading dock facilities
rail or rapid transit passenger facilities
warehouse and similar storage facilities
..
..
..
..
Ch. 18.53
Draft 1.12.10
Page 3
limited outdoor storage
wireless communication facilities attached to an existing
structure pursuant to 18.72.180
freestanding wireless communication support structures
pursuant to 18.72.180
public service or community buildings with office or space used
directly by public
public service or community buildings without office or space
used directly by public
public and quasi-public utility service buildings enclosed in
..
..
private school, college, trade school, technical school or similar
school
electrical substations
NC = Neighborhood Center
MU = Mixed Use
OE = Office/Employment
CI = Compatible Industrial
OS = Open space
B. Special Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are special permitted uses as listed in the Land
Use Table and are subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter
18.72, Site Design and Use Standards.
1. Residential Uses.
a. The ground floor area shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses,
excluding residential.
b. Residential densities shall not exceed the densities in section 18.53.060. For the
purposes of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross
habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit.
c. Residential uses shall execute a hold harmless covenant and agreement stating
they shall not protest impacts from commercial and industrial uses within the
district.
2. Temporary Employee Housing.
Residential units for use by persons employed within the facility and their families when the
following standards are met.
a. Employee Housing densities shall not exceed two units per acre. For the
purposes of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross
habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit.
b. The employee housing shall be in conjunction with a permitted or special permitted
use on the property.
c. Units shall be restricted by covenant to be occupied by persons employed by a
business operating on the property.
Ch. 18.53
Draft 1.12.10
Page 4
3. Limited Stores, Restaurants and Shops.
Stores, restaurants and shops, excluding fuel sales, automobile sales and repair, when the
following standards are met.
a. The maximum floor area dedicated for use as stores, restaurants and/or shops in
a building or a group of associated buildings located on the same parcel is a
cumulative 1,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area,
whichever is less.
b. In the MU Mixed Use overlay, the floor area shall be limited to retail uses in
conjunction with a permitted use.
c. The remaining building floor area (i.e. total floor area - store/restaurant/shop floor
area) is occupied by a permitted use.
4. Child or Day Care Facilities.
Child or day care facilities when the following standards are met.
a. Primary program activities are integrated into the interior of the building.
b. The maximum floor area dedicated to use as a day care facility shall be 1,500
square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less.
5. Ancillary Employee Services.
Developments may include ancillary employee services such as cafeterias, fitness areas,
or other supportive services generally intended to support the needs of employees when
the following standards are met.
a. The use is integrated into the interior of the building.
b. The maximum floor area dedicated to an ancillary employee service use is a
cumulative 2,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area,
whichever is less.
c. The ancillary employee services shall be in conjunction with a permitted or special
permitted use on the property.
6. Kennels.
a. Kennels shall be located at least 200 feet from the nearest residential dwelling.
b All animals shall be boarded within a building at all times.
c. No noise or odor shall emanate outside the walls of the building used as a kennel.
d. A disposal management plan shall be provided demonstrating all animal waste will
be disposed of in a sanitary manner.
7. Manufacture, Assembly, Fabrication and Packaging in OE Overlay.
Developments in the OE Office Employment overlay may include ancillary manufacturing,
assembly, fabrication and packaging uses to support the operations of a permitted use on-
site when the following standards are met
a. The portion of a building used for manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and
packaging shall not exceed 50 percent of the ground floor area.
b. No outside space shall be used for the manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and
packaging processes.
c. Manufacturing, assembly, fabrication packaging operations requiring permits from
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for air or water discharge, or
similar environmental concerns, shall be prohibited.
Ch. 18.53
Draft 1.12.10
Page 5
8. Limited Manufacturing Affiliated with a Retail Use.
Manufacturing, assembly, fabrication or packaging contiguous to and associated with a
retail space, provided the manufacture area occupies 1,000 sq.ft., or ten percent (10%) of
gross floor area, whichever is less
9. Warehouse and Similar Storage Facilities.
a. The portion of a building used for warehouse or similar storage uses shall
comprise and area not to exceed 25 percent of the ground floor area.
b. Warehouse and storage facilities shall be provided only in conjunction with, and for
the exclusive use by, a permitted use on the property.
c. Self-service mini-warehouses are prohibited
d. No outside space shall be used for storage, unless approved as a limited outdoor
storage area.
10. Limited Outdoor Storage.
Limited outdoor storage associated with a permitted use when the following standards are
met.
a. The maximum square footage dedicated to outdoor storage shall be 1,000 square
feet.
b. The outdoor storage shall be located behind or on the side of buildings, and shall
be located so the outdoor storage is the least visible from the street that is
reasonable given the layout of the site.
c. The outdoor storage shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood or
metal fence, or a masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All outdoor storage
materials shall be contained within the refuse area.
d. The associated permitted use shall obtain a minimum of 50% of the employment
density targets for the Croman Mill District.
11. Public and Quasi-Public Utility Service Buildings.
a. Facilities and structures that are accessory to a public park in the OS overlay,
including but not limited to maintenance equipment storage, enclosed picnic
facilities, and restrooms.
b. Public and Quasi-Public utility service building relating to receiving and
transmitting antennas and communication towers are subject to the applicable
provisions of 18.72.180
c. Public and Quasi-Public utility service building shall demonstrate:
i. The need for the facility, present or future; and how the facility fits into the
utility's Master Plan.
II. The facility utilizes the minimum area required for the present and anticipated
expansion.
III. Compatibility of the facility with existing surrounding uses and uses allowed by
the plan designation.
Ch. 18.53
Draft 1.12.10
Page 6
SECTION 18.53.050 Dimensional Regulations
The lot and building design requirements are established in each zoning district regulation in the
Dimensional Standards Table.
50
50
2
10
10
10
15
2 2 2 23
2.5/35 3/40 3/40 3/40
4/50 4/50 5/75 5/75
minimum, square feet
F ronta e
minimum, feet
Lot Width
minimum, feet
Yard Abuttin a Street
minimum yard, feet
maximum yard abutting a street, feet2
Side Yard Abuttin a Residential District
minimum, feet
Read Yard Abuttin a Residential District
minimum per story, feet
Landsca in Covera e
minimum percentage coverage
Hei ht
minimum number of stories
maximum height without bonus, stories/feet4
maximum height with bonus, stories/feet5
Solar Access
1/20
The solar access setback in Chapter 18.70 Solar Access
. .
minimum
Residential Densit 7
maximum units er acre without bonus
maximum units per acre with bonus
0.60
0.60
0..60
0.50
30
60
15
30
1 minimum yard in CI Overlay abutting an Active Edge Street is two feet, minimum yard in CI Overaly not abutting an Active Edge
Street is ten feet
2 Maximum yard requirements shall not apply to entry features such as alcoves, and to hardscape areas for pedestrian activities
such as plazas or outside eating areas.
3 Second story shall be a minimum of 20% of the gross floor area.
4 Solar energy systems and parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and no greater than five
feet above the height limited specified by the district.
5 Solar energy systems and parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and no greater than five
feet above the height limited specified by the district.
6 Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ration (FAR).
7 Density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this standard. Density shall be computed by dividing the
total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions shall not apply
toward the total density. Minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density.
Ch. 18.53
Draft 1.12.10
Page 7
SECTION 18.53.060 Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay
All projects containing land identified on the Croman Mill District Land Use Overlays Map as open
space shall dedicate those areas as open space. It is recognized that the master planning of the
properties as part of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan imparted significant value to the
land, and the required dedication of those lands within the Croman Mill district for open space and
conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change
in zoning designation.
SECTION 18.53.070 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance
Development located within the Croman Mill (CM) zoning district shall be required to meet all other
applicable sections of the Land Use Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter.
Ch. 18.53
Draft 1.12.10
Page 8
SECTION VIII
Croman Mill District Standards
Adopted by the Ashland Council
Ordinance
A. Street Standards
VIII-A-1) Street Design
The design and construction of streets and public improvements shall be in
accordance with the Ashland Street Standards, except as otherwise required for the
following facilities within the Croman Mill District. A change in the design of a street
in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Street Design Standards
requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.B.
1. Central Boulevard
The tree-lined boulevards along Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street are an
easily identifiable feature of Ashland's boulevard network. Application of this
street design to the Central Boulevard will create a seamless boulevard loop,
linking the Croman Mill district with downtown Ashland. The Central Boulevard
also serves as the front door to the Croman Mill district, creating a positive first
impression when entering the district.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
1
Central Boulevard
2. Phased Street Plan
Build-out of the Central Boulevard can be accommodated through a phased
development plan.
a. Phase I implementation will require:
i. Maintain the existing Mistletoe Road alignment form Tolman Creek
Road to the northwest corner of the Croman Mill site.
II. Include developer- constructed minor improvements to the existing
portion of Mistletoe Road such as a minimum six-foot wide sidewalk
on the north side of the street, two ii-foot travel lanes and the
addition of a left-turn pocket at the intersection with Tolman Creek
Road.
III. A developer-constructed three-lane Central Boulevard from the
northwest corner of the district to Siskiyou Boulevard.
b. Phase II implementation will require:
i. The realignment of Tolman Creek Road is contingent upon future
acquisition of right-of-way through the existing ODOT maintenance
yards.
II. Realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek Road.
III. Negotiating dedicated easements.
IV. Vacating a portion of City-owned property.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
2
Options addressing the final street configuration and intersection
geometry will be evaluated with the final Phase II design of the
northwest section of the Central Boulevard.
v.
Phase I
3. Tolman Creek Road Realignment
Additional traffic will be generated by the
redevelopment of the Croman Mill
district. The realignment of Tolman
Creek Road with the Central Boulevard
will discourage non-local through traffic
in the Tolman Creek neighborhood and
in the Bellview School area. The
modifications to the street network will
preserve neighborhood character and
address impacts to the neighborhood by
directing traffic away from the
neighborhood and Bellview School, and
toward the Croman Mill district while
maintaining access to Tolman Creek
Road for neighborhood-generated trips.
Phase II
Key elements of the realigned Tolman
Creek Road include:
a. Two through traffic lanes and a
northbound turn lane.
b. New traffic signal.
c. Bike lanes.
d. Sidewalks separated from auto traffic by landscaping and canopy trees.
e. Landscaped neighborhood gateway.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
3
f. Evaluate the intersection alignment of local streets with Tolman Creek
Road incljuding Takelma Way, Grizzly Drive and Nova Drive.
Tolman Creek Road Realignment
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
4
Neighborhood Center and Tolman Creek Road Realignment
4. Local Commercial Streets
Local Commercial Streets provide district circulation to and from employment
uses, the Central Park and the neighborhood center.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
5
Local Commercial Street
5. Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path
The Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path
runs parallel to the Central Boulevard and
connects with the City's existing Central Bike
Path in two locations - adjacent to the Central
Park and at the neighborhood center.
The design of the protected bikeway should
include the following elements.
a. A grade-separated two-way colored
bicycle path buffered from on-street
parking by landscaping.
b. A sidewalk separated from the bicycle
path by striping, bollard, grade separation
ot other treatments.
c. Tabled intersections.
d. Elimination of auto right turns on red at
intersections.
e. Incorporate rumble strips along the
bike path at the approaches to all
intersections.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
6
f. Signage, lighting or other treatments to alert drivers, pedestrians and riders
approaching intersections.
g. Consideration of a bikes-only signal phase at signalized intersections.
Local Commercial Street with Protected Bike Lane
6. Multi-use Paths
The multi-use paths provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between the
district and adjacent neighborhood, employment and commercial areas. The
plan includes the extension of the Central Bike Path and the establishment of the
Hamilton Creek Greenway trail. The Central Bike Path extends the existing
multi-use path along the southern edge of the CORP rail line within a 20-foot
wide dedicated easement, and serves as a viable commuter route and link to the
downtown. The Hamilton Creek Greenway trail provides access to the
neighborhood center and an east/west connection across the creek.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
7
Multi-use Path
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
Central Bike Path
8
Central Bike Path at Accessway
7. Accesssways
The accessways are intended to
balance circulation needs of
pedestrians, bicycles and
vehicular access, and to
preserve the grid that
encourages development of a
form that is of human scale and
proportion. The accessways
would connect the Central
Boulevard to the Central Bike
Path and allow for shared
bicycle, travel lanes, optional on-
street parking, and temporary
loading zones as necessary to
serve development sites.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
9
Accessways: Full Street and Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Options
VIII-A-2) Limited Auto Access Streets
Developments abutting the Central Boulevard
and local streets surrounding the Central Park
shall not have curb cuts on the Limited Auto
Access Streets as indicated on the Limited
Access Streets map. A modification of a
driveway access location in a manner
inconsistent with the Croman Mill District
Standards requires a minor amendment in
accordance with Section 18.53.020.B.
VIII-A-3) Access
1. Street and driveway access points in
the Croman overlay zones shall be limited
to the following.
a. Distance Between Driveways.
On Collector Streets - 75 feet
On Local Streets and Accessways
- 50 feet
b. Distance from Intersections
On Collector Streets - 50 feet
On Local Streets and Accessways
- 35 feet
2. Shared Access. All lots shall provide a shared driveway aisle to abutting
parking areas that is at least 20 feet in width. The applicant shall grant a
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
10
common access easement across the lot. If the site is served by a shared
access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or
alley and not from the street frontage.
VIII-A-4) Required On-Street Parking
On-street parallel parking shall be provided along the Central Boulevard and local
streets as indicated on the Required On-Street Parking map. Angled parking and
loading zones are prohibited on these streets.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
11
B. Design Standards
The Croman Mill District Design Standards provide specific requirements for the physical
orientation, uses and arrangement of buildings; the management of parking; and access
to development parcels. Development located in the Croman Mill District shall be
designed and constructed consistent with the following Design Standards. Additional
design standards apply and are specified for developments located along an Active
Edge Street, or that are within the NC, MU and OE overlay zones. A site layout,
landscaping or building design in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District
Design Standards requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.B.
VIII-B-1) Orientation and Scale
1. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather
than the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the
street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. All front doors
must face streets and walkways. Where buildings are located on a
corner lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order
street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. Buildings
shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable.
Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along
the street frontage.
2. Building entrances shall be located within ten feet of the public right of
way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be
granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a
greater setback results in an improved access or for sites with multiple
buildings where this standard is met by other buildings. The entrance
shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional, and shall be open to
the public during all business hours.
3. Automobile circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the
building and the right-of-way.
4. These requirements may be waived if the building is not along an
active edge and is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses
and industrial buildings without attached offices.
5. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or
finish giving emphasis to entrances.
Additional Orientation and Scale Standards for Developments Along
Active Edge Streets, and NC, MU and OE Overlays:
6. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets,
jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fa9ade.
7. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and
awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun.
8. Buildings shall incorporate display areas, windows and doorways as
follows. Windows must allow view into working areas or lobbies,
pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of
the street are prohibited.
a. For Buildings in the NC, MU and OE Overlays Not Along an
Active Edge Street. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street,
plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of the
wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
12
Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted
for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas.
b. For Buildings Along an Active Edge Streets. At least 50% of
the first-floor fa9ade is comprised of transparent openings (clear
glass) between three and eight feet above grade.
VIII-B-2) Parking Areas and On-site Circulation
1. Primary parking areas shall be located behind buildings with limited
parking on one side of the building.
2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from
adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non-residential
uses.
3. Parking areas shall meet the Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening
Standards of Section 11-0 of the Site Design and Use Standards.
Additional Parking Area and On-site Circulation Standards for
Developments Along Active Edge Streets, and NC, MU and OE
Overlays:
4. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
13
5. Protected raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of
50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth.
6. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate
areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least ten feet
in width, or by a building or group of buildings.
7. Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and
bicycle circulation plan for the site. One site pedestrian walkways
must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by
employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be
directly linked to entrances and to the internal circulation of the
building.
VIII-B-3) Automobile Parking
With the exception of the standards described below, automobile parking
shall be provided in accordance with the Off-Street Parking chapter
18.92, Section VIII-C Croman Mill District Green Development Standards,
and Section 11-0 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of
the Site Design and Use Standards.
1. Credit for Automobile Parking. The amount of required off-street
parking shall be reduced up to 50%, through application of the
following credits. .
a. On-Street Credit: One off-street parking space credit for
every on-street space
b. Parking Management Credit: Through Implementation of an
parking management strategy that demonstrates a reduction of long
term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested.
c. Mixed Use Credit: through a mixed-use parking arrangement
that demonstrates the peak parking demands are offset
2. Maximum Surface Parking. A maximum of 50% of the required off-
street parking can be constructed as surface parking on any
development site. The remaining parking requirement can be met
through one or a combination of the following methods: a credit for
automobile parking in VIII-B-3( 1), construction of off-site parking at
designated shared parking areas, an on-site structure, or through
payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees to the City for a public parking
structure(s) upon establishment of a parking district serving the
Croman Mill district.
VIII-B-4) Streetscape
1. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for
each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting
the street. Street trees shall meet the Street Tree Standards in
Section II-E of the Site Design and Use Standards.
Additional Streetscape Standards for Developments Along Active
Edge Streets, and NC, MU and OE Overlays:
2. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people"
areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored
concrete, pavers, or combinations of the above.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
14
3. A building shall be setback not more than ten feet from a public
sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian entries such as
alcoves and pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating
areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner
lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65% of
the aggregate building frontage shall be within ten feet of the
sidewalk.
VIII-B-S) Building Materials
Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the
building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a
majority of the building skin.
VIII-B-6) Building Height Requirements
All buildings shall have a minimum height as indicated in the Building
Height Requirements Map and Dimensional Standards Table, and shall
not exceed the maximum height except as provided for a performance
standard bonus.
1. Street Wall Height: Maximum street wall fa9ade height for the
Croman Mill district for all structures located outside the Residential
Buffer Zone is 50 feet.
2. Upper-floor Setback: Buildings taller than 50 feet must step back
upper stories, beginning with the fourth story, by at least six feet
measured from the fa9ade of the street wall facing the street,
alleyway, public park or open space.
3. Residential Buffer Zone: All buildings in the Croman Mill District
within the Residential Buffer Zone shall meet the following height
standards:
a. Maximum Height: The maximum height allowance for all
structures within the Residential Buffer is Zone 35 feet in the NC
overlay and 40 feet in the MU.
b. Upper Floor Setback Requirements: Buildings taller than two
stories must step back the third story by at least six feet measured
from the fa9ade facing the street, alleyway, public park or open
space.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
15
4. Architectural Standards for Large Scale Buildings Located Along
Active Edge Streets, and within the NC, MU and OE Overlays:
The following architectural standards will apply to all buildings with a
gross floor area greater than 10,000 square feet, a fa9ade length in
excess of 100 feet, or a height taller than 45 feet.
a. On upper floors use windows and/or architectural features that
provide interest on all four sides of the building.
b. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces
into smaller scale elements.
c. Use color or materials to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale
of the building.
d. Divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to
human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or
direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on
surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting.
e. On-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which
includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards and
street trees.
VIII-B-7) Landscaping
1. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and
shrubs on the site as possible.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
16
2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use deciduous
and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species as
described in Section III - Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines
and Policies.
3. For developments in the CI Overlay and not adjacent to an Active
Edge Street, buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by
landscaped areas at least ten feet in width, unless area is used for
entry features such as alcoves or hardscape areas for pedestrian
activities such as plazas or outside eating areas.
4. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to
residentially zoned land.
5. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after
one year and 90% coverage occurs after five years.
6. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
VIII-B-8) Lighting
Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by
including light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in
height along pedestrian pathways.
VIII-B-9) Screening Mechanical Equipment
1. Screen rooftop mechanical equipment from public rights-of-way or
adjacent residentially zoned property through extended parapets or
other roof forms that are integrated into the overall composition of the
building. Screen ground floor mechanical equipment from public
rights-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property.
2. Parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building
height, and no greater than five feet above the height limit specified in
the district in accordance with the Dimensional Standards Table in
Section 18.53.050.
3. Solar energy systems are exempt from this standard. Additionally,
rooftop solar energy systems may be erected up to five feet above the
calculated building height, and no greater than five feet above the
height limit specified in the district in accordance with the Dimensional
Standards Table in Section 18.53.050.
4. Installation of mechanical equipment requires Site Review approval
unless otherwise exempted per Section 18.72.030.8.3.
VIII-B-10) Transit Facilities Standards
The location of planned transit routes within the Croman Mill District shall
be defined according to the Croman Mill District Transit Framework map
in collaboration with the local transit authority. Transit service facilities
such as planned bus rapid transit facilities, shelters, and pullouts shall be
integrated into the development application consistent with the following
standards.
1. All Large Scale development located on an existing or planned transit
route shall accommodate a transit stop and other associated transit
facilities unless the Director of Community Development determines
that adequate transit facilities already exist to serve the needs of the
development, or
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
17
2. Provide the City with a bond or other suitable collateral ensuring
satisfactory completion of the transit facilities at the time transit
service is provided to the development. Suitable collateral may be in
the form of security interest, letters of credit, certificates of deposit,
cash bonds, bonds issued by an insurance company legally doing
business in the State of Oregon, or other suitable collateral as
determined by the City Administrator.
VIII-B-11) Freight Rail Spur Easement - Compatible Industrial (CI)
1. A Rail Spur easement a
minimum of 500 feet in length
by 25 feet in width shall be set
aside at the approximate
location presented on the
Croman Mill District Transit
Framework Map.
2. No buildings or permanent
structures can be established
within the spur easement so
not to preclude installation of a
rail spur for freight loading and
unloading.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
18
3. Buildings adjacent to the reserve strip shall be designed and
configured to permit loading and unloading.
VIII-B-12) Commuter Rail Platform Easement - Neighborhood Commercial
(NC)
1. A Commuter Rail Platform easement
or designated rail road right-of-way a
minimum of 400 feet in length and 25
feet in width shall be set aside at the
approximate location presented on the
Croman Mill District Transit Plan Map.
2. No buildings or permanent structures
can be established within the platform
easement so as not to preclude
installation of a planned bus rapid
transit facility or commuter rail
platform for loading and unloading.
3. Buildings adjacent to the reserve strip
shall be designed and configured to
permit loading and unloading.
VIII-B-13) Open Spaces
1. Central Park. The purpose of the Central Park is to serve as a public
amenity and accommodate the daily needs of employees (e.g. breaks,
lunch time) as well as for special events that will attract residents
citywide. The Central Park design shall provide a minimum of the
following elements.
a. Circulation through and around the park.
b. A centrally located hardscape area to accommodate large
gatherings, and of no more than 50% of the total park area.
c. Street furniture, including lighting, benches, low walls and
trash receptacles along walkways and the park perimeter.
d. Simple and durable materials.
e. Trees and landscaping that provide visual interest with a
diversity of plant materials.
f. Irregular placement of large-canopy trees within passive areas
adjacent to the Central Boulevard.
g. Eight-ft. minimum sidewalk width and seven-ft. minimum
parkrow width.
h. Landscaped swales to capture and treat runoff.
I. Pourous solid surfacing for at least 50% of the hardscape
area, and paving materials that reduce heat absorption.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
19
Central Park
2. Transit Plaza. A location for the transit plaza shall be reserved
between the commuter rail platform and commercial uses along the
Central Boulevard. The design of the plaza shall include the following
elements.
a. A passenger waiting, loading and unloading area.
b. Outdoor gathering space adjacent to commercial uses.
c. Accommodate the central bike path.
d. Conveniently located and secure bike parking.
Transit Plaza
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
20
~&,
VIII-B-14) Compact Development
The site layout is compact, and enables future intensification of
development and changes to land use over time. The following measures
shall be used to demonstrate compliance with this standard.
1. The development achieves the required minimum floor area ratio
(FAR) and minimum number of stories, or shall provide a shadow plan
that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time for
more efficient use of land and to meet the required (FAR) and
minimum number of stories.; and
2. Opportunities for shared parking are utilized.
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
21
C. Green Development Standards
The Croman Mill District Green Development Standards provide specific requirements
for the management of stormwater run-off, use and collection of recycled materials, solar
orientation and building shading, and conserving natural areas. Development located in
the Croman Mill District shall be designed and constructed consistent with the following
Green Development Standards. A site layout, landscaping or building design in a
manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Green Development Standards
requires a minor amendment in accordance with Section 18.53.020.8.
VIII-C-1) Conserve Natural Areas
Preserve water quality, natural hydrology and habitat, and preserve
biodiversity through protection of streams and wetlands. In addition to the
requirements of Chapter 18.63 Water Resources, conserving natural
water systems shall be considered in the site design through application
of the following standards.
1. Designated stream and wetland protection areas shall be considered
positive design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a
given project.
2. Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the
creek to enhance habitat.
3. Create a long-term management plan for on-site wetlands, streams,
associated habitats and their buffers.
VIII-C-2) Create Diverse Neighborhoods
Use the following measures to encourage diversity in the district by
providing a balanced range of housing types that compliment a variety of
land uses and employment opportunities.
1. Differentiate units by size and number of bedrooms.
2. For developments including more than four dwelling units, at least
25% of the total units shall be designated as rental units.
3. Affordable purchase housing provided in accordance with the
standards established by Resolution 2006-13 for households earning
at or below 80% of the area median income shall apply toward the
required percentage of rental housing per VIII-C-2(2).
4. Units designated as market rate or affordable rental units shall be
retained as one condominium tract under one ownership.
VIII-C-3) Design Green Streets
Green Streets are public streets that have been built or retrofitted to
include landscape areas that increase stormwater infiltration, reduce and
slow the rate of runoff, and use bio-filtration to remove pollutants.
1. New streets shall be developed to capture and treat stormwater in a
manner consistent with the Croman Mill District Stormwater
Management Plan Map, the City of Ashland Stormwater Master Plan,
and Ashland Green Streets Standards.
2. All development served by planned Green Streets as designated on
the Croman Mill District Green Street Map shall accommodate said
facilities by including the same in the development plan; and/or
3. Provide the City with a bond or other suitable collateral ensuring
satisfactory completion of the Green Street(s) at the time full street
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
22
network improvements are provided to serve the development.
Suitable collateral may be in the form of security interest, letters of
credit, certificates of deposit, cash bonds, bonds issued by an
insurance company legally doing business in the State of Oregon, or
other suitable collateral as determined by the City Administrator
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
23
Green Streets
VIII-C-4) Design Green Surface Parking
Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental
and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material
selection. All parking areas shall meet the following standards, and shall
comply with the with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, with Section
VIII-B eroman Mill Design Standards, and Section 11-0 Parking Lot
Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use
Standards.
1. Use less than 25% of the project area for surface parking.
2. Use paving materials with a high solar reflectance reduce heat
absorption.
3. Provide porous solid surfacing on a least 50% of the parking area
surface.
4. Provide at least 50% shade cover over the surface lot within five years
of project occupancy.
VIII-C-S) Manage and Reuse of Stormwater Run-Off
Reduce the public infrastructure costs and adverse environmental effects
of stormwater run-off by managing run-off from building roofs, driveways,
parking areas, sidewalks and other hard surfaces through implementation
of the following standards.
1. Design grading and site plans to capture and slow runoff.
2. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that
captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
24
3. Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate
the soil.
4. Direct discharge storm water runoff into a designated green street and
neighborhood storm water treatment facilities.
5. Retain rainfall on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration or
through capture and reuse techniques.
VIII-C-6) Recycling Areas
All developments in the Croman Mill District shall provide an opportunity-
to-recycle site for use of the project occupants.
1. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste
receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or
with access comparable to the solid waste receptacle to
accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee
under its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both
the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle
shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view
from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.
2. Residential. All newly constructed residential units, either as part of an
existing development or as a new development, shall provide an
opportunity-to-recycle site in accord with the following standards:
a. Residential developments not sharing a common solid waste
receptacle shall provide an individual curbside recycling container
for each dwelling unit in the development.
b. Residential developments sharing a common solid waste
receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to
or with access comparable to the common solid waste receptacle
to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste
franchisee under its residential on-route collection program for
purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the
common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or
landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or
public rights-of-way.
3. Screening refuse and recycle areas. Refuse and recycle areas shall
be screened from view by placement of a solid wood, metal, or
masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse and recycle
materials shall be contained within the refuse area.
VIII-C-7) Minimize Construction Impacts
Minimize pollution and waste generation resulting from construction
activity through the following measures.
1. Construction Activity Pollution Prevention. Develop and implement an
erosion and sediment control plan to reduce pollution from
construction activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway
sedimentation and airborne dust generation in accordance with
Ashland Public Works Standards. The erosion and sediment control
plan shall be submitted with the final engineering for public
improvements and building permit.
2. Construction Waste Management. Recycle and/or salvage non-
hazardous construction and demolition debris in accordance with the
Building Demolition Debris Diversion requirements in 15.04.216.C.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
25
VIII-C-8) Potable Water Reduction for Irrigation
Potable Water Reduction. Provide water efficient landscape irrigation
design that reduces by 50% the use of potable water beyond the initial
requirements for plant installation and establishment. Calculations for the
reduction shall be based on the water budget, and the water budget shall
be developed for landscape and irrigation that conforms to Section III -
Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies. Methods used
to accomplish the requirements of this section may include, but are not
limited to, the following.
1. plant species
2. irrigation efficiency
3. use of captured rainwater
4. use of recycled water
5. use of graywater
6. use of water treated for irrigation purposed and conveyed by a water
district or public entity.
VIII-C-9) Solar Orientation
Incorporate passive and active solar strategies in the design and
orientation of buildings and public spaces. When site and location permit,
orient the building with the long sides facing north and south.
VIII-C-10) Building Shading
1. Provide exterior shade for south-facing windows during the peak
cooling season.
2. Provide vertical shading against direct solar gain and glare due to low
altitude sun angles for east- and west- facing windows.
VIII-C-11) Recycled Materials
Utilize recycled materials in the construction of streets, driveways, parking
lots, sidewalks and curbs.
VIII-C-12) Outdoor Lighting
Minimize light pollution from the project to improve nighttime visibility,
increase night sky access and to reduce development impact on
nocturnal environments by using down-shielded light fixtures that do not
allow light to emit above the 90 degree plane of the fixture. Lighting
fixtures provided to implement Federal Aviation Administration mitigation
measures to enhance safe air navigation are exempt from this standard.
VIII-C-13) Performance Standard Bonuses
The permitted base residential density or building height, whichever is
applicable, shall be increased by the percentage density or number of
stories as outlined below. In no case shall the residential density or
building height exceed the density and height bonus maximums in the
Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.050.
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
26
1. Green Building Bonus
Projects that achieve a high performance green building standard and
significantly improve energy performance beyond the current
minimum Oregon requirements are eligible for a building height bonus
as follows.
a. In the event that a building or structure is determined to be meet
the standard for LEED@ Certified building, the building height may
exceed the maximum height specified for the CM overlay districts
within the Dimensional Standards Table in Section 18.53.060,
through application of a height bonus as follows:
i. A building obtaining LEED@ Certification as meeting the
LEED@ Silver Standard may be increased in height by up to
one story.
II. A building obtaining LEED@ Certification as meeting the
LEED@ Gold Standard may be increased in height by up to
two stories.
III. A building in the Residential Buffer overlay obtaining LEED@
Certification as meeting the LEED@ Silver or Gold Standard
may be increased in height by Y:z story up to a maximum height
of 40 feet.
IV. Applications to increase the building height in excess of the
maximum permitted height through the application of a height
bonus shall address any conditional determination by the
Federal Aviation Administration regarding mitigation
measures requested to enhance safe air navigation .
b. Demonstration of Achieving LEED@ Certification
Projects awarded a height bonus pursuant to this section, shall
provide the City with satisfactory evidence of having completed
the following steps in the process toward demonstrating
achievement of LEED@ certification:
i. Hiring and retaining a LEED@ Accredited Professional as part
of the project team throughout design and construction of the
project.
II. Developments seeking a height bonus shall provide
documentation with the planning application, and prior to
issuance of a building permit, that the proposed development
as designed and constructed will meet or exceed the
equivalent LEED@ standard relating to the height bonus
awarded.
III. A final report shall be prepared by the LEED@ Accredited
Professional and presented to the City upon completion of the
project verifying that the project has met, or exceeded, the
LEED@ standard relating to the height bonus awarded.
IV. The report shall produce a LEED@ compliant energy model
following the methodology outlined in the LEED@ rating
system. The energy analysis done for the building
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
27
performance rating method shall include all energy costs
associated with the building project.
v. The project developer shall be required to provide a lien or
performance bond to the City of Ashland in an amount equal to
the value of the bonus prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
i. This lien or performance bond shall be calculated on the
square footage of the additional space provided by the
bonus multiplied by one hundred dollars ($100.00) per
square foot.
II. This lien or performance bond shall be released by the City
at such time that the project attains LEED@ Certification.
c. Height Bonus Penalty Section
If the project fails to attain LEED@ certification within three years
of receiving its initial Certificate of Occupancy, then the Developer
shall be subject to a fine equal to the higher of:
i. 1 % of the total construction costs, or
ii. The amount of the Lien! Performance Bond provided
pursuant to Section VIII-C-13(b)(v)(i).
III. If the fine is not paid within thirty (30) days of the date it is
imposed, then the City shall have the authority to revoke
the Certificate of Occupancy for the building.
2. Structured Parking Bonus.
A building may be increased by up to one story in height when the
corresponding required parking is accommodated underground or
within a structured parking facility, subject to building height
limitations for the zoning district.
3. Affordable Housing Bonus.
a. For every percent of units that are affordable, an equivalent
percentage of density bonus shall be allowed up to a maximum
bonus of 100%.
b. Affordable housing bonus shall be for residential units that are
affordable for moderate income persons in accordance with the
standards established by resolution of the City Council and
guaranteed affordable through procedures contained in said
resolution.
VIII-C-14) Employment Density
To promote transit supportive development, efficient use of
employment zoned lands, and local economic vitality, it is
recommended that developments within the Croman Mill District are
planned to accommodate employment densities as follows:
a. 60 employees per acre in the Office Employment (OE) Overlay
b. 25 employees per acre in the Compatible Industrial (CI) Overlay
c. 25 employees per acre in the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
28
~&,
d. 20 employees per acre in the Neighborhood Center (NC)
Overlay
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
29
Additional Plan Maps
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
30
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
31
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
32
~&,
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
DRAFT 1.12.10
33
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MULTIPLE CHAPTERS OF THE ASHLAND
LAND USE ORDINANCE (AMC 18.08.190, 18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343,
18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110,
18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020,
18.96.090, 18.104.020, 18.106.030, 18.108.017), AND THE ADDITION OF A
NEW CHAPTER (AMC 18.53) CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
CROMAN MILL DISTRICT
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold lined through and additions are in bold underline.
Ch. 18.08 Definitions
SECTION 18.08.190 District. A zoning district.
A. "R" district indicates any residential zoning district.
B. "C" district indicates any commercial zoning district.
C. "M" district indicates any industrial zoning district.
D. "A" district indicates any airport overlay district.
E. "CM" District indicates any Croman Mill Plan zonina district
rBe/ow To be inserted in alphabetical order}
18.08.341 LEED@Accredited Professional.
A person who has earned a credential as a Leadership in Enerav and
Environmental Desian (LEED@) Accredited Professional from the U.S.
Green Buildina Council. or Green Buildina Certification Institute. in
accordance with their standards and reauirements.
18.08.342 LEED@ certification.
A buildina reaistered with the U.S. Green Buildina Council which has
satisfied all prereauisites and has earned a minimum number of points
outlined in the Leadership in Enerav and Environmental Desian
(LEED@) Ratina System under which it is reaistered. Levels of
certification include Certified. Silver. Gold and Platinum.
18.08.343 LEED@ Green Buildina Ratina Svstem" or "LEED@ Ratina
System.
The most recentlv published version of the Leadership in Enerav and
Environmental Desian (LEED@) Green Buildina Ratina Systems bv the
U.S. Green Buildina Council. or the version to be superseded for one
year after the publication of a new applicable LEED@ Ratina System
version.
18.08.845 Water Budaet
The amount of water a landscape needs takina into account the inputs
and outputs of water to and from the root zone. Inputs. such as
precipitation, are subtracted from outputs, such as evapotranspiration,
to calculate the water needs of the landscape.
Ch. 18.12 Districts
SECTION 18.12.020 Classification of Districts.
For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts
designated as follows:
(Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008)
Airport Overlay
Residential - Rural
Residential - Single Family
Residential - Low Density Multiple Family
Residential - High Density Multiple Family
Commercial
Commercial - Downtown
Employment
Industrial
Woodland Residential
SOU - Southern Oregon University
Performance Standards (P} - Overlay
Detail Site Review Zone
Health Care Services Zone
North Mountain Neighborhood
Croman Mill District Zone
Residential Overlay
Freeway Sign Overlay
A
RR
R-1
R-2
R-3
C-1
C-1-D
E-1
M-1
WR
SOU
P
DSR
HC
NM
CM
R
F
18.53 - CROMAN MILL DISTRICT
[SEE COMPLETE NEW SECTION]
Ch. 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection
SECTION 18.61.042- Approval and Permit Required
D. Tree Removal Permit:
1. Tree Removal- Permits are required for the following activities:
a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned
C-I, E-I, M-I, CM,or HC.
b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially
zoned lots (R-2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single
family detached dwelling.
c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for
residential purposes including but not limited to R-1, RR, WR, and
NM zones.
d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SOU, on lands under
the control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the
control of the City of Ashland.
2. Applications for Tree Removal- Permits shall be reviewed and approved
by the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and
18.108.040 (Type Procedure). If the tree removal is part of another planning
action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely
filed, shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action.
Ch. 18.68 General Regulations
SECTION 18.68.020 Vision Clearance Area.
Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing
the size of the vision clearance area:
A. In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet or, at
intersections including an alley, ten (10) feet.
B. In all other districts except the C-1aRd-E-1, and eM, the minimum
distance shall be fifteen (15) feet or, at intersections, including an alley,
ten (10) feet. When the angle of intersection between streets, other than
an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the distance shall be twenty-five
(25) feet.
C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls,
structures, or temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding two and
one-half (2 %) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, except
that street trees exceeding this height may be located in this area,
provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight (8) feet
above the grade.
D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject
to the Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2605, S1, 1990)
SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements.
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets
and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the
eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or
portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed
below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street.
Street (Highway
nd Siskiyou Boulevard
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than
twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the CM and C-1-D district~ and properties
abutting Lithia Way in the C-1 district.
(ORD 2959,8/1/2008)
Ch. 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards
SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability.
Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below.
A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review:
1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM, and
M-1 zones.
b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings,
schools, churches, etc.).
c. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of
the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or
other changes which affect circulation.
e. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive
occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use
which requires a greater number of parking spaces.
f. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another
general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b
the zoning regulations of this Code.
g. Any exterior change to a structure which is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an
Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that
requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art.
h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review
per Section 18.72.030(8).
2. Residential uses:
a. Two or more residential units on a single lot.
b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes,
condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts.
c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in
conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision
required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the
individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking).
d. Any exterior change to a structure individually listed on the National
Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes
the installation of Public Art.
e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review
per Section 18.72.030(8).
SECTION 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards.
A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the
following zones:
R-1
R-2
R-3
C-1
C-1-D
- 45% of total
35% of total develo
None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the
landscaping and
screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and Use
Standards.
E-1
M-1
CM~C a
.. CM-OE .....,~~~~~~ ~~ 15% of total developed lot area ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. CM-CI............:.... ..15% of total developed lot area ................................................................................................,
CM-MU 10% of total develo ed lot area
SECTION 18.72.120 Controlled access.
A. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1
CM, or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth in
section (8) below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so
that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from
one or more points.
B. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, or M-1 zone shall
be limited to the following:
1. Distance between driveways.
On arterial streets - 100 feet;
on collector streets - 75 feet;
on residential streets - 50 feet.
2. Distance from intersections.
On arterial streets - 100 feet;
on collector streets - 50 feet;
on residential streets - 35 feet.
C. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subiect to the
requirements of the of Croman Mill District Standards.
CD. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments.
1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in
excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway
access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by
the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited.
SECTION 18.72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards.
There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting
standard in any other residential lot, C-1, E-1 or M-1, SO, CM or HC lot.
SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication
Facilities
D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the
requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use
Standards and are subject to the following approval process:
Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding
Existing Structures Support
Structures Structures
Residential Zones( 1) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited
C-1-D (Downtown)('L) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP
E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP
M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP
SOU Site Review CUP CUP
NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Historic District('L) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP
HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
CM-NC CUP CUP CUP
CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP
CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP
CM-MU CUP CUP CUP
CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Ch. 18.84 Manufactured Housing Developments
SECTION 18.84.100 Special Conditions.
A. For the mitigation of adverse impacts, the City may impose conditions.
Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Require view-obscuring shrubbery, walls or fences.
2. Require retention of specified trees, rocks, water ponds or courses, or
other natural features.
B. No manufactured housing developments may be located within the Ashland
Historic District.
c. No manufactured housing developments may be located, relocated, or
increased in size or number of units, within any zones designated for
commercial use -- C-1, C-1-D, E-1, CM or M-1.
Ch. 18.88 Performance Standards Options
SECTION 18.88.070 Setbacks.
A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district.
B. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same
setbacks as required in the parent zone.
C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone.
D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall
be required as the minimum width between buildings, except within non-
residential zonina districts includina C-1, C-1-D, E-1, CM, and M-1.
E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section
18.68 18.70 except within the C-1-D and CM zonina districts.
F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback
requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan.
SECTION 18.88.080 P-Overlay Zone.
A. The purpose of the P-overlay zone is to distinguish between those areas
which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those
areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography,
vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under
Performance Standards.
B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land,
or development of individual living units, in the P-overlay areas, shall be
processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum
number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within
residential zonina districts shall be three.
C. In a P-overlay area, the granting of the application shall be considered an
outright permitted use, subject to review by the Commission for compliance
with the standards set forth in this Ordinance and the guidelines adopted by
the Council.
D. If a parcel is not in a P-overlay area, then development under this Chapter
may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average
width; or
2. That development under this Chapter is necessary to protect the
environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur
from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision
standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; or
3. The property is zoned R-2.l. Gf R-3.l. or CM.
Ch. 18.92 Off-Street Parking
Section 18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required
C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces
are required.
1. Industrial uses, except warehousinQ.
One space per two employees on the largest shift or for each 700
square feet of gross floor area, '.t:hichever is less, plus one space per
company "ehicle.
2.--lndustrial and Warehousing uses.
One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two
employees, whichever is greater less, plus one space per company
vehicle.
3.2. Public utilities (gas, water, telephone, etc.), not including business
offices.
One space per two employees on the largest shift, plus one space per
company vehicle; a minimum of two spaces is required.
Ch. 18.96 Sign Regulations
SECTION 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts.
Signs in commercial, industrial~ -and-employment, and Croman Mill districts,
excepting the Downtown-Commercial Overlay District and the Freeway Overlay
District, shall conform to the following regulations:
[remainder of 18.96 left unaltered]
18.104 Conditional Use Permits
SECTION 18.104.020 Definitions.
The following are definitions for use in this chapter.
A. "Impact Area" - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which
may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a
use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area,
if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed
use, is also included in the impact area.
8. "Target Use" - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1. \^.'R
('A'oodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones:
1. WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones:
Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at
the density permitted by Section 18.88.040.
2. R-1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use complying with all
ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section
18.88.040.
3. R-2 and R-3 Zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance
requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone.
4. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.0208., developed
at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements.
5. C-1D. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B.,
developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with
all ordinance requirements.
6. E-1. The general office uses listed in 18.40.020 A., developed at an
intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements.
7. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in 18.40.020 E., complying
with all ordinance requirements.
8. SO. Educational uses at the college level, complying with all ordinance
requirements.
9. CM-CI. The Qeneral liQht industrial uses listed in 18.53.050 A.,
developed at an intensity of .35 Qross floor to area ratio, complvinQ
with all ordinance requirements.
10. CM-CE. The Qeneral office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at
an intensity of .50 Qross floor to area, complvinQ with all ordinance
requirements.
11.CM-MU. The Qeneral office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at
an intensity of .50 Qross floor to area, complvinQ with all ordinance
requirements.
12. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed
at an intensity of .50 Qross floor to area ratio, complvinQ with all
ordinance requirements.
Ch. 18.106 Annexations
18.106.030 Approval Standards
H. One or more of the following standards are met:
1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and
there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land
in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits.
"Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which
development has already occurred but on which, due to present or
expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing
development will be converted to more intensive residential uses
during the planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined
from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the
methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan; or
2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CM, E-1 or C-1 under the
Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review
approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use
concurrent with the annexation request; or
3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full
City sanitary sewer or water services; or
4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate
water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate
within one year; or
5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water
or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a
signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and
accepted by the City of Ashland; or
6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely
surrounded by lands within the city limits.
Ch. 18.108 Procedures
SECTION 18.108.017 Applications
C. Priority plannina action processina for LEED@ certified buildinas.
1. New buildinas and existina buildinas whose repair, alteration or
rehabilitation costs exceed fifty percent of their replacement
costs, that will be pursuina certification under the Leadership in
Enerav and Environmental Desian Green Buildina Ratina System
(LEED@) of the United States Green Buildina Council shall
received top priority in the processina of plannina actions.
2. Applicants wishina to receive priority plannina action processina
shall provide the followina documentation with the application
demonstratina the completion of the followina steps in the
workina towards LEED@ certification.
a. Hirina and retainina a LEED@ Accredited Professional as
part of the project team throuahout desian and
construction of the project.
b. The LEED@ checklist indicatina the credits that will be
pursued.
3. The City Council may establish, bv resolution, a fine to be
imposed on projects that fail to achieve LEED@ certification for
any project that received priority plannina action processina
pursuant to this Section.
Croman Mill District
East-West Alternative Option Map
Croman Mill District
Comments
BECEIVED
From: M Knox [mailto:knox@mind.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12/ 2010 11:36 AM
To:Md
Cc: mark@cityoftalent.org
Subject: Croman
City of Ashland
Community Deveiopment
Mark,
Please forward or incorporate as you see fit. I wish I had more time to spend on this.
Ashland Planning Commission and Staff:
Unfortunately, I'm out of town this evening and will not be able to make the meeting regarding the
Croman Mill Master Plan. I appreciate everyone's time and effort on this subject and wanted to
pass on a few comments for the Commission and staff to consider:
Unfortunately, I think the underlying foundation of this plan has been crafted by a Planning firm
more interested in promotional advertising then end results which will not likely be understood for
20/30 years when everyone now involved will be far removed. Of course there are a number of
creative elements of the plan that are valuable, but overall the plan is lacking substance and
shouldn't be forwarded to the Council until some of the issues are d[scussed, understood and
hopefully resolved. My primary issues involve the property at 700 Mistletoe Road as I've worked
on the property, designed various site plans for the property, and have discussed lease and
purchase agreements for the property with business owners looking to start or relocate their
businesses in Ashland. This has given me the opportunity to appreciate the dynamics of a
busineses operational characteristics such as loading and unloading, assembly space demands,
grading and ADA conflicts, etc, Since I've worked on site and know the area very well, I also have
a pretty decent understanding of the Croman area and its positive and negative components.
As such, my list of comments and questions, in random order, are as follows:
1) Why would the rear of 700 Mistletoe Road be zoned industrial when the existing buildings
could be removed/converted into other uses fitting with the overall plan?
2) Why is the front of the property at 700 Mistletoe Road zoned Office-Employment (OE) instead
of Mixed-Use (MU)?
3) More importantly, why isn't manufacturing a permitted use in the OE zone? A significant
amount of effort has gone into the marketing of this property as well as the site planning in an
attempt to persuade at least two manufacturing type of companies. One has gone as far as
completing engineering plans and receiving Site Review approval from the City. This is on record
and should have been recognized throughout the development of the master planning efforts,
Regardless, not permitting manufacturing in the OE zone does not make sense. Is this also an
oversight? .
4) It appears the code language of CM 18.53 addresses "manufacturing" in the text, but it's not
listed in the table as a permitted use.
5) Why would the code language only permit 50% of the ground floor to be manufacturing? Not
only is this an arbitrary number, I thought the purpose of the plan was to create jobs. How is this
area to achieve 60 jobs per acre if manufacturing is not permitted or is limited?
6) The plan is overwhelmingly full of red flags that are going to be a deterrent for small and large
companies looking to "start" or relocate their businesses, Although I'm not a "hands off" skeptic, I
do believe when someone evaluates a particular piece of property and completes their due
diligence, there will be "sticker shock" based on the numerous regulations as well as its punitive
language, that they will instead consider another area. For example, the language regarding
LEED certification is overwhelmingly punitive where bonding is required prior to building and if the
certification is not granted, despite the efforts of the developer, the entire bonding amount is
forfeited? Has anyone from the consulting agency or staff obtained bonds before?? First, you
"pay" to the bonding entity (bank) 10% to 15% of the total amount just to bond, This is money lost
"up front" ($30,000 to $45,000 for a $300,000 third floor), Furthermore, the bond is forfeited to the
City and more penalties are assessed if the certification does not pass". The mere thought of
revoking someone's Certificate of Occupancy after three years of occupancy is a telling sign that
this section of the ordinance is unacceptably punitive. Is someone really going to revoke
occupancy and remove all of the people Uobs) from the property because the LEED certification
isn't passed? Really? We should be PROMOTING innovative and conservation minded
individuals and companies, but this section of the ordinance eliminates these opportunities before
they can even get started,
7) Although laudable, the landscaping coverage has gone up from 10% to 15% which sounds
great, but because buildings are now to be built at the front setback line, the landscaping is not
going to be seen, Is this correct?
8) The minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, minimum width of 100' and ,60 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) is purely arbitrary, This should be explained as to how these amounts/dimensions were
derived? Has someone put pencil to paper and attempted to design such a building, At a
minimum, this would require someone to build a 12,000 square foot building.., Whathappens to
start-up businesses or smaller existing businesses that only need 3,000 square feet? Can they
locate here? Do they have to ask for an "exception" before they even get started? Do they have
to complete a phased plan with significant engineering costs, planning costs, etc. and will they be
subject to a time frame? Additional penalties? Why are these standards even being considered?
Why have minimums? Why not just have maximums?
9) My previous comments from 9/29/09 remain a concern. Primarily, the new road and bridge to
be extended over Hamilton Creek is a major funding issue and an environmental concern, Not
only will the realignment go through existing businesses, but it will require significant Oak trees to
be removed and fill to be added. Furthermore, the new road does nothing to correct the
approximate 90 degree corner that now exists, but instead adds a "second" approximate 90
degree corner, In fact, the second is probably more dangerous because of the multiple street and
driveway intersections currently present. I understand the purpose of the new street and believe
it's planning at Tolman Creek is a great idea, but as it approached Hamilton Creek, it needs
further consideration,
10) Although the Croman area appears "flat" it does have slopes ranging from 3 to 5% that when
designing a 12,000 square foot building (let alone 3,000 square foot building), ADA, functional,
drainage, and design issues become very problematic.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input. If there is an opportunity to re-evaluate the
plan and "tweak" certain elements of it, I sincerely believe the planning committee should include
property owners, contractors and design professionals that have experience in land use
designing and development.
Mark Knox
RICHARD A, STARK
LARRY C. HAMMACK
ERIC R. STARK
STARK AND HAMMACK, P.C.
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
201 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 1 B
MEDFORD, OREGON 97501
(541)773-2213
(541) 779,2133
FAX (541) 773-2084
Ich@starkhammack.com
January 8, 2010
RECEiVED
Sent Via Regular Mail
Ashland Planning Commission
Pam Marsh, Chairman & Members
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
JAN 1 1 2010
City of Ashland
Community Development
RE: Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
with Proposed Amendments
Planning Action #2009-01292
Applicant: City of Ashland
Hearing: January 12, 2010
Dear Chairman Marsh and Members:
This firm represents the partners comprising Ashland Warehouse Partnership,
who are the owners of two separate tax lots, as hereinafter identified, and the
buildings thereon. This property and the improvements are located within the
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (Plan), which will be before this commission
for hearing on January 12th, 2010. The street addresses and tax lots are as follows:
1. 695 Mistletoe Road, Ashland, Oregon, tax lot 1900; and
2.697 Mistletoe Road, Ashland, Oregon, tax lot 402.
The purpose of this communication is to inform you that our client has
significant concerns regarding approval and subsequent implementation of this Plan.
It appears that the Plan is presently conceptual, and subject to further specifications
and perhaps amendments and modifications. Notwithstanding, our clients do object
to the approval and/or implementation of this Plan, as it would have a serious
detrimental and negative impact to our client's property. Our client's objection would
pertain to any and all approvals of the Plan as presented and any and all future
adopted modifications and amendments which directly effect our client's property as
identified herein.
Our client's objections, among other things, include the following:
A. It would appear that either presently, or at the time Phase II of the
plan is adopted and/or instituted, that a taking will occur as it pertains to one or both
Page - 2
Ashland Planning Commission
January 8, 2010
of our client's tax lots. This is based upon the fact that Central Drive Boulevard is
presently designated, in its' entirety, to be constructed as a ninety (90) foot
thoroughfare, and as such it would be constructed upon or through one or both of
our client's tax lots. That would constitute a taking, and necessitate eminent domain
proceedings;
B. In addition to the foregoing, our client's property would be, or may be
impacted by parking and/or traffic concerns presented by the Plan presently before
the commission and/or by any specifications or amendments or modifications that
may be made to the Plan; and
C. We reserve our right to respond more definitely and to provide further
objections to the extent of specifications or modifications or amendments to the
redevelopment Plan.
We would ask that we be notified of all future hearings pertaining to this Plan.
Very truly yours,
STARK AND HAMMACK, P.C.
C--------
Eric R. Stark
ERS: rb
cc: clients
GERALD R. AND SUZANNE C. KNECHT FAMILY TRUST
114 CALUMET AVENUE
SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960
415-457-8447
FAX: 415-457-8440
EMAIL: gknecht@comcast.net
January 10,2010
City of Ashland
Planning Commission and Staff
RE: CROMAN MILL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Gentlemen:
We are the owners of Tax Lots 4300 and 4000 (portion thereof) situated on the
Westerly side of Mistletoe Road, and encompassed within the study and planning
areas for the Croman Mill Site presently under consideration.
We have reviewed the proposed planning for our parcels, and note that an MU
("Multiple Use") designation has been tentatively assigned in the most recent plan
as described on the City website, The permitted uses for this zoning align well with
our planned development of the property, which is live/work units for small
businesses.
We therefore endorse the planned zone designation and urge its inclusion in the
final plan.
We are unable to attend the upcoming study session but hope to be at some of the
future ones.
Very Sincerely.
Gerald R. Knecht
CC: Alex Knecht
RECEIVED
JAN 1 1 2010
City of ASflland
Community Deveiopment
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Derek Severson
Maria Harris
1/7/20108:33 AM
Historic Commission Discussion of Croman Heritage Name List
Maria,
At last night's Historic Commission meeting, Keith Swink from the CAC discussed ways to recognize the history of the
Croman site through the naming of features such as the streets and park and/or potential themes in public art,
The Commission was generally in agreement with the idea of trying to reflect the site heritage by recognizing the
importance of Native Americans, the railroad and particularly the Chinese railroad workers, and the more recent mill
operation by creating a heritage name list for the project. Keith and Henry Baker were both interested in working on this
fu rther.
- Derek
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
(541)552-2040 or (541)488-5305, TIY: 1-800-735-2900
FAX: (541) 552-2050
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for
disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541)552-2040, Thank you,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
January 6,2010
Pam Marsh
Chair, Ashland Planning Commission
20 East Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
RE: REVIEW OF THE CROMAN MILL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN
Dear Pam:
On December 17, 2009, the Ashland Transportation Commission received an update on
the Croman Mill District Master Plan from Brandon Goldman. At that meeting, the
Commission expressed a strong desire to review the transportation elements of the plan
in greater detail at its next meeting.
Unfortunately, the Transportation Commission will not be able to review the plan until
January 21,2010 - after the Planning Commission's January meeting. Therefore, the
Commission respectfully requests that the Planning Commission not close the record
until the comments of the Transportation Commission are received (immediately
following their January 21,2010 meeting).
We sincerely hope the Planning Commission can accommodate this request.
sincerely,GtN\
Colin Swales
Transportation Commission Chair
cc: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Mike Faught, Public Works Director
Jim Olson, Transportation Commission Staff Liaison
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Larry Blake, Planning Commission Liaison to Transportation Commission
Engineering
20 E Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Tel: 541/488-5347
Fax: 541-/488-$006
TTY: 800/735-2900
~~,
C:IDocuments and SettingslColinlMy DocumentslDownloadslCroman PH ttrto Plan Comm Marsh 16 10.doc
>>> "Kat Smith" <l'\.~lJ1itb~@[Yl<;Lgrg> 12/18/2009 1: 19 PM >>>
Please forward to Transportation Commissioners.
1) Oregon Revised Statute 814.420 addresses the "bicyclists must use bikelanes if one
is available" concern addressed by Math Warshawsky and David Chapman: http://stc-
Please let me know if the Commission would like a sixth edition copy
of "Pedal Power: A Legal Guide for Oregon Bicyclists" by Ray Thomas.
2) League of American Bicyclists postion on bike lanes, paths, etc.
hUp:/ /www.bikeleague.org/about/positions/eye!istsrights. php
If you need a letter of support for keeping the lanes on the street, please let me know.
3) Here's a link to the study I mentioned last night:
http://www . techtransfer. berke ley. ed u/newsletter/03- 2/ crosswa I k. ph P
Please note: 'Therefore, the addition of a marked crosswalk alone, with no engineering,
enforcement, or education enhancement, did not reduce pedestrian accidents for any of
the conditions included in the study.'
This is in direct correlation to the 5 E's currently used by the National Center for Safe
Routes to School, http://www.saferoutesinfo.orq/guide/.
Attached you will find a letter from Paige Townsend, RVTD Senior Planner, concerning
the 4 E's as well. The fifth E, Engineering, should be included as well:)
4) Croman Mill District
Paige made recommendations, to the consulting firm approximately 2 years ago, that if
the bus route were diverted through the Mill District that residents (children, seniors, etc,)
living on Tolman Creek would need adequate access through the business zone to
reach the transit stops, And vice versa, if the bus route remains on Tolman Creek that
commuters would need access to the current transit stops already on Tolman Creek,
This is represented on the current plans as "multi-use" paths, Her concern is that
bringing pedestrian's fromthe residential zone into the business zone could create an
unsafe situaion if adequate access coorridors are not incorporated into the design,
Thanks much,
Kat Smith
Transportation Options Coordinator
RVTD
541.608.2423
541.326.7517
"Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride."
JFK
To the Transporlation Commission
>>> Matt Warshawsky <mwarf?.b.91f,(J;_~.Y,@,'2'?:if?_Qtech com> 12/8/2009 12: 15 PM >>>
Hi guys,
Sorry I haven't been around much. Alas, I will miss December and most likely January
meetings. I will also miss July, August and possibly September, For this reason, I
chatted with the mayor before leaving in November about whether it would be
appropriate for me to step down. I am leaving it up to him, but as of yet have not heard
back from him.
Anyhow, it appears that the Croman stuff is coming to a head, The Croman
subcommittee basically had its last meeting, which I unfortunately missed. There are two
things I was hoping the TC could discuss and move on at the next TC meeting, though I
suppose the second one would be discussed once the 1 st one was successful:
1) It appears that the TC is largely being bypassed on making recommendations
concerning the current Croman plan, I think this is a serious mistake as the PC has
largely just taken the design standards recommended by the consultant as acceptable
and not spent any real time critiquing them. This is understandable as their expertise is
in buildings n'ot roads. The TC's purview however, is road design standards and so I
would encourage the TC to really push the question of why they were not asked to
critique the current plan. I certainly have one major problem with the existing plan (see
below), and likely the trained eyes of the rest of the TC commission will find a few other
issues that really should be discussed.
2) as I indicated, I have a particular problem with the recommended two way bike path
that is to run along side the "signature" boulevard. I have had repetitive discussions
about this and am largely getting nowhere as the road design remains the same. I have
not had a chance to discuss with Bill what has been decided in the last month, but I'm
guessing nothing is changed. I emailed the TC a few months back concerning this issue
and we briefly talked about it in a meeting and decided that the Croman plan should not
be so specific, but rather should yield to the overall design standards of the city as
determined by the TC and its work on the TSP. Alas, no one is listening it appears,
My concerns are enhanced after my recent visit to Boulder where they have several
such two way bike paths. They have been in place for at least 15 years as they were
there when I moved there in '95, but one thing that has changed about them in the last
five years is that they have added warning signs to motorists that they are about to cross
a two-directional bike path. I believe that this just indicates that Boulder has had
problems with these two way bike paths along roads, Since the paths are well
established, their only solution was to use signage. To me, signage is a poor substitute
for proper engineering,
Bill Molnar recently sent me a different design, surprisingly designed by Crandall 1
Arambula, the same people that did Croman. It is shown here:
http://www.portlandmonthlymaq.com/health-and-fitness/articles/blke-planning-l 009/#,
If a separated bike lane (not on the street) is the goal, then I believe this design is much
better for several reasons (and all of the below was emailed to Bill):
a) the cyclists, although separated from the cars, are still going the same direction as
traffic. Croman has the bike lane just on one side with 2 directional traffic, which makes
it harder for cars as they have to look in yet another direction when turning. A bike lane
on one side also creates some serious conflicts at the end points of the path, which are
not addressed at all in the plan. At that point, a cyclist in one of the two directions is
going to have to cross the street to get onto the roadway in the correct direction to
continue past the bike path. Many will cross properly, but I also see many just shooting
diagonally across an intersection.
b) as the cyclists approach areas of conflict (intersections), they are brought close to the
auto lane and not hidden behind parked cars and trees. This eliminates a major concern,
that a 15mph cyclist isn't going to slow down and a car isn't going to see them behind
trees, or set back from the corner by 10 feet
Whatever is recommended, I had a few other comments and since I may not be at the
TC meeting when this is hopefully discussed, here they are: 1) make it so no driveways
are allowed across the separated bike path. This limits the conflict points to the actual
intersections, and presumably will fit in well with the active street idea, reducing ped
conflict as well. If parking lots are in the back or side, presumably we wouldn't want a
driveway coming from the front anyway
2) if you do a separated bike path, whether as drawn, or in with single lanes on each
side (like the link you sent), make sure at intersections it is brought to the corner and not
set back, or behind trees. Same goes for the sidewalks. Actually, setting it back from
the road for most of the length, and then curving the path/sidewalk towards the corner at
every intersection would achieve several things:
a) it puts the bike/ped where the car expects it, near the corner
b) it forces the cyclist to slow down, much the way a chicane achieves normal traffic
calming
c) it turns the cyclist towards the intersection so they can better see vehicles
You just have to make sure the cyclist can't cut across the ped sidewalk to keep a
straight line.
3) if you do a separated bike path in any form, make sure the law is changed to allow
cyclists going the general speed of traffic to ride in the street instead of the path. In
Colorado at least, if there is a separated bike path running parallel to a road, you are
required to use the bike path. I think an experienced cyclist doing 20 -25 mph on a
25mph street is much safer on the road, taking the lane; safer for both for themselves
and any other less experienced cyclists on the bike path.
Thanks,
Matt
(,
Dregon
(,)
Department of Land Conservation and Development
Southern Oregon Field Office
155 North First Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Phone: (541) 858-3189
HECEIVED Fax: (541) 858-3142
Web Address: http://w\vw.lcd.state.or.us
Theodore R Kulongoski, Governor
November 9,2009
City of ASf11:md
Community DGveiopment
~
Brandon Goldman
Ashland Planning Department
20 East Main
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Hand Delivered
Subject:
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change, Local File No. 01292
DLCD File No. 004-09
Dear Mr. Goldman:
The Department of Land Conservation and Development appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the city's proposed comprehensive plan and zone change for the Croman
Mill site. The city is proposing a master plan for the Croman Mill area. This plan if
approved would modify the underlying Comprehensive Plan Designation from a mix of
Employment, Industrial, and Single Family designations, to a single Croman Mill District
(CMD) designation. Within the CMD area specific overlays are proposed that would
guide development including an Office Employment overlay, Compatible Industrial
overlay, Mixed Use overlay, and Neighborhood Center overlay. These new designations
will essentially delineate specific uses, dimensional standards, and design standards.
The department takes this opportunity to remind the city that it must make findings I
compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule 660-009-001 0(4) with this comprehensive
plan and zone change.
Additionally, the department encourages the city to adopt the excellent economic
opportunities analysis the city proposed two years ago.
The city's finding in support of this comprehensive plan amendment and zone changes
must also address Section 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. Findings
should demonstrate that zone changes are consistent with planned transportation facilities
in the city's Transportation System Plan, propose mitigations measures that will bring
the proposed zoning into compliance with the TSP, or propose changes to the functional
designations of roadways in the TSP. To assess compliance with the TSP the city needs a
transportation impact analysis.
Ashland 004-09
1
Please place these comments in the record for this matter. If you have any questions on
the above comments, please contact me at (541) 858-3189 or bye-mail at
john.renz@state.or.us.
Since?L ~
John Renz
Southern Oregon Regional Representative
Cc: digitally to Tom Hogue, Matt Crall and Gloria Gardiner at DLCD
Ashland 004-09
2
Bill & Maria:
ODOT Rail Division staff has received and reviewed the Croman Mill Site draft
plan and has the following comments. On page 42 of your plan you show the
possibility of two new trail crossings of the CORP railroad main line track.
Although there isn't any freight traffic on this line at present, we anticipate that the
freight rail traffic will return in the future.
Rail Division is not aware of any safer way to allow the establishment of any new
pedestrian or trail crossings without separating them. Therefore ODOT Rail
division will oppose the establishment of any new at grade trail, pedestrian or
vehicle railroad crossings.
.JUtpwn ~o.n
RECEIVED
Compliance Specialist
9
503-986-4095 Fax 503-986-3183
myron.l.arneson @odot.state,or.us
City of Ashland
Community Development
From Colin Swales 12-7-2009
Pam Marsh, Chair, Planning Commission
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
(please fwd. to other PC members)
(cc TC members; Mike Faught, Public Works Director; Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner & TC
liaison; Nancy Slocum, TC Staff; LaITY Blake, PC liaison to TC)
I read in today's Tidings that tomorrow night the Planning Commission will be discussing the
latest ideas about the Croman Master Plan, "Commission likely to get its last look at draft plan",
although your CUlTent packet seems to contain no infOllTIation about this.
But I did however note from the last Croman Advisory Committee packet (Nov 18) page 13>23
that the draft plan contains new Street Standards for that development.
e.g.
The Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path runs parallel to the Central Boulevard and
connects 'vvith the City's existing Central Bike Path in two locations - adjacent to the Central
Park and adjacent to the day-lighted section of Hamilton Creek,
The design of the protected bikeway should include the following elements.
1, A grade-separated two-way colored bicycle path buffered from on-street parking by
landscaping.
2. A sidewalk separated form [sic] the bicycle path by striping, bollard or a grade separation.
3. Tabled intersections.
4. Elimination of auto right turns on red at intersections.
5, Incorporate rumble strips along the bike path at the approaches to all intersections.
6. Signage to alert drivers, pedestrians and riders approaching intersections.
7. Consideration of a bikes-only signal phase at signalized intersections.
As you are probably aware, the 9-member Transportation Commission includes a number of very
experienced cyclists as well as other road users, who I feel could offer a great deal of expertise on
such important parts of the Croman Plan, Indeed, that is our duty,
I would respectfully request that our Commission is given the opportunity, in conceit with the
Planning Commission, to fully review in detail the TranspOltation-related aspects of this plan and
hopefully that Staff can brief us all on these details at their earliest convenience. (note: We have
not yet finalized our Dec 17 agenda).
I shall try my best to make it to your meeting tomorrow night, and TC member and Croman
Advisory Committee Chair, Matt Warchawsky has indicated that he is also likely to attend,
Thanks
Colin Swales
Chair, Transportation Commission,
Correspondences from Russ Chapman, Member of the Croman Advisory
Committee
From: "Russell Chapman" rkc@ashlandhome.net 11/17/2009
Good evening to you both,
I keep forgetting to e-mail a suggestion to you both about the recycling area standards
in VIII-C-5. In section 3, referring to screening, it says you can only use solid wood or
masonry wall's. It really needs to include steel. Note the new gates on the plaza
trash/recycle area, You'd be putting a lot of folks out of compliance and denying them
what can be a very decorative screening material.
The rest of the packet looked good! Thanks, Russ
From: "Russell Chapman" rkc@ashlandhome.net 11/19/2009
Dear Staff,
My answers to the 3 questions are as follows:
1. Are the land uses included in the land use matrix consistent with the goals and objectives of the Croman
Mill Site Redevelopment Plan?
The land uses are consistent with the redevelopment plan and I appreciate the additional
covenant about the residential not being able to interfere with the industrial.
2. Do the design standards seem consistent with the employment center envisioned in the Croman Mill Site
Redevelopment Plan?
Yes.
3. Do the sustainable design standards go too far, not go far enough or seem just about right?
Yes, I believe you have them right. Despite what John said, planners cannot be
responsible for fluctuating market conditions or the rent property owners charge which
effects vacancy rates. He seemed to be saying, the tougher the market conditions, the
lower our standards should be. And build out is always incremental, that shouldn't be a
surprise.
It was a pleasure to be involved with you all again! Thanks, Russ
(
Croman Area Development Plan Summary
The area. Walker - TOlman/Croman, East Main - Old 99
Obj,ecti ve I Where and how to house the influx of people with
the success of the redevelopment of the Croman site.
The area between Walker - Tolman, Siskiyou - Ashland St., and
J!.oiwer Clay St. area'" are pro jected to see the largest increases
of density. Right of way is to gotten to create a "safe street"
and greenwaY/bike path starting at Joy st. to Mae, where it de-
parts in two directions - one to Diane1croman, the o~her to Clay
Creek way. Along this new grid four story residential is allowed.
Likewise a route from lower Clay to .the Middle school and Walker,
and 'the redelopm.ent of the trailer park along Clay Creek, also
allowing four story residential.
The Clommercial area: at Tolman and Ashland St will redevelop
into a more family oriented centers of shops, entertainment, and
restilL2J2ants
The greenway/bikepaths allow easy access between the new dense
neighborhoods via bike and vvalking to shopping and schools and
the added density should allow for a trolly to the Old Dovmtown
Are a.
;';
RECEIVED
City of Ashland
Community Deveiopment
, . .\, \ ,'\ r \.'\\'\\1 \ \\('li f'.\ j I t,C
'~l\\)~\.\.\'h)C Dl,i:'\\\'\\\\<:\ ,1/\\.,'\;"\\ i.~
Hersery St./RR property Plan SQmmary
Objective. To maintain downtovrn's vitality, and return it to
a. p1.ace of prominence within the community as a whole.
Encourage high .aem;bi ty employment in .this area. Review h&gght,
parking and like ordinances that may help facilitate this goal.
Direct traffic not bound for downtovm area on North Main onto
HeJ?sery "4io Oak to Clear Creek to Mountain.
Restore two way traffic on East Diiain and Li thia Way.
a-:c Hersery
Norc;h Main~-to Helman two lanes with increased sidewalk wid'eh
and generous bike lanes, and with a lane a-c Helman -to turn direcfly
East on.to Li'thia Way.
Restore 20' setback on LOth'
.'. ~ . l.a Way to allo'w for diangle parking
with length restrictions and electric meters. Old Copeland site
High density retirement reSidential.
'frolley fr 4' h
,om t and A, up ipth and down East Main to Water St,
to Van Ness and back ~o 4th.
.)
Page 1 of 1
Maria Harris - Croman Plans - three cents
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"M Knox" <knox@mind.net>
"'Bill Molnar'" <bill@ashland.or.us>, "'Maria Han'is'" <maria@ashland,or.us>
9/29/2009 10:37 AM
Croman Plans - three cents
"'Mark D"' <markd@mind.net>
Bill & Maria,
In regards to the Draft Croman Plan and the propeliy at 700 Mistletoe Road, I would like to point out that the
property owners have invested a significant amount into the property and believe the building's design and
site planning effOlts already address many of the concepts discussed in the draft Croman Plan. The owners
did this without the benefit of a Master Plan and instead relied on the existing Site Design & Use Standards,
Land Use Codes and Planning Staff's suggestions. Although more costly, the owners are very proud of the
results and believe the Croman planning efforts are velY impOltant to the areas economic, employment,
aesthetic and transpOltation successes,
That said, I have two comments: First, the Building Height Requirements (Page 74) appears to leave out the
Mistletoe Office Park site (700 Mistletoe Road) as well as the propeliy across the street. This doesn't make
much sense and lacks streetscape cohesion. Both propelties are ideal for multi-stOlY development as the
site's physical conditions (no slopes, no trees, no rock outcroppings, etc, and the subsurface conditions are
more stable in comparison to the identified Plexis site) are capable of suppOlting it and there are no
residential neighbors, pmticularly at 700 Mistletoe Road, to obstmct views from, Is there a reason for this
omission?
Secondly, the Limited Access Streets plan (Page 75) does not identify what the distance between driveways
would be. The plan shows "limited access" along the Mistletoe Office Park frontage, but the owners of this
property have preliminmy plans and tentative commitments from employers that would like to locate to this
site and desire tmck circulation and access, The preliminmy plans completed by the propeliy owners (I
believe these plans were also submitted to the consultants earlier) illustrate one or two additional buildings
south of the existing driveway with one and possibly two more curb-cuts. The preliminary plans call for a
variety of building sizes and addresses on-site circulation for tmcks. Considering the investments made so
far in the site's planning, infrastmcture and dedication to the public right-of-way, I would hope there is some
flexibility built into the final documents without having to go through an expensive and time consuming
process for an exception.
Finally, the realignment of Mistletoe Road appears unnecessarily aggressive, insensitive and will likely cost
a millions of dollars. This could be the single most expensive element to this plan and I just don't see the
benefit. Large heritage Oak Trees will need to be removed, an enormous amount of cut and fill will need to
occur in a recognized riparian and flood area, the alignment of the bridge doesn't comply with the P&E
standards and buildings/parking/access etc., will be displaced and dismptive. It should be suggested to the
consultants to re-evaluate this part of the plan.
UnfOltunately, I only attended two preliminmy workshops (l1i years ago??), but have not been asked or
notified since. I wish I could be more involved, but maybe I'm too opinionated! @
Sincerely,
Mark Knox
file://C:\Documents and Settings\harrism\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4ACIE375Ash... 1/5/2010
>>> "Mark D" <markd@mind.net> 09/29/092:04 PM >>>
Hi Bill,
I write today as a concerned property owner of 3 separate taxlots fronting Mistletoe Rd
(391E14AC taxlots 1100, 1200, 1000 with street addresses #650, #700, and #750
Mistletoe Road). I am surprised to see how far along the Croman Mill planning has
come without any input fi'om adjacent property owners in the last 6 months. I've
attended nearly all public meetings 1 + years ago and my last contact from the City was
when I walked the property with the planning commission in the late winter. Since then
I've heard nothing except when I read the Daily Tidings recent article. Now I am seeing
a significantly complete plan and see some possible negative impacts and have some
questions about how this plan impacts my project, Mistletoe Road Business Park.
Background on Mistletoe Road Business Park:
You will recall when we built out the first phase of our project that we dedicated 15' of
street width for 1,000 linear feet of our frontage, we paid to improve that dedicated land
to City street standards, brought future power, AFN, etc. to that side of the street and
upsized storm-drain lines to accommodate the future development along Croman Mill.
We also dedicated 10' width along the 700 ft. north property line for a future bike path.
In total, that equals 1S acre of property given to the City as pati of our 6 acre
development. I understand development often comes with costs, it is just important that
these items are recognized as significant costs and impacts on propeliy owners in an
attempt to improve the City overall. We then proceeded to build a state-of-the-art Class
A office building along that frontage and in the rear, more marginal portion of the
property, we constructed self storage space which local businesses, resident, and our own
office tenants utilize for their inventory. The future plans for the remaining land along
the Mistletoe frontage of our properties will hide the storage building nicely and continue
our masterplan to build a high quality office park unlike any other in Ashland. Our plans
include the development ofthe 1 acre parcel to the north (taxlot 1000) and the 1S acre
parcel to the south (taxlot 1200) into mixed use office and commercial use. We have an
existing approval for the 1S acre unfortunately the tenant has financing problems so we
are on hold. Additionally, we will add one more Class A office building adjacent to the
existing building #700 Mistletoe. We estimate that under current standards an addition of
more than 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial and mixed use buildings can occur on our three
parcels. Visitors to the Croman Mill Site must currently drive by our entire 1,000 linear
feet of frontage to reach the Croman Mill site, a highlight to our original purpose of
buying this parcel and a reason we upgraded the quality of our first buildings. Apart
from Adroit corporate offices much further up the street, we are the only new
construction along the entire Mistletoe Road frontage and we believe an important visual
impact for those trying to visualize what Mistletoe Road can become over the long term.
Questions and Concerns:
1. The current plan has cut off 60% of our frontage along Mistletoe by redirecting
the primary boulevard and relegated the frontage of two of our three lots to a side
street. As you know, vehicle trips and visibility playa key role in the value of a
commercial property, our two properties, (the existing office building and the lot
to the north) will see little to no vehicle trips compared to what we see today.
This is a critical negative impact on our properties. I brought up at the previous
meetings and as the plan continues to be clarified, I notice how my input was
ignored and the Boulevard is moving further away from our property, this is
disconcerting to say the least.
2. The planned curve for the primary street is located in a way that appears to create
a safety issue in front of #700 Mistletoe Rd. As users of our facility coming from
Tolman Cr. Rd. stop to turn left into #700 Mistletoe, thru traffic will be rounding
the corner to see a stopped vehicle. The City has a problem corner on Mistletoe
already, let's not re-create that problem again.
3. It is confusing to me whether the overlay includes our property or not. The map
for CMD E/I on pg. 63 shows that we are included in a zone change. The map on
pg. 74 showing new building height standards does not include our property. The
map on the cover of the entire document does not highlight our property as
included but does highlight other existing properties which are not part of the
Croman Mill that have structures and are occupied. Are our properties included
or not? And what are our options here?
4. What specifically will change with the current M-l zoning that we have compared
to the new CMD E/I shown on pg. 63. How will it affect our ability to develop
our property? Clearly from the red and line outs on pg 63-72 there are some
significant impacts such as reducing retail spaces from 20,000sq ft to 10,000 sq.
ft. I am no expert here so would like some help correlating these new code
standard with our existing M -1 standards (M -1 already includes most of E-l uses
too)
5. Are we required to meet whatever sustainability standard imposed on the Master-
planned property? While I am a supporter of green building, and have been
encouraging tenants to consider that route, market rents combined with cost of
construction/permit fees, make it terribly difficult to spend more to build a LEED
or other standard building. Plus I understand many of the tax credit go away if
Code requires that style of construction. Has anyone looked into these factors?
6. I notice that the language on pg. 77 states that new projects would have to go
through a design commission. I've been involved in city planning enough to
know that this isn't an easy thing in Ashland. Clearly, we as developers of
Mistletoe Road Business Park have developed high quality, architecturally
significant buildings without direction from a commission and do not want to
have someone telling us how to integrate new buildings with the buildings we
already have built on our properties out there.
7. Pg. 15 shows a map with a arrow pointing at our street frontage for taxlot 1000
saying, "Signature Street and Protected Bike Lane". This combined with the
comments on pg 74 stating that the primary street will have "limited access" leads
me to believe that our taxlot 1000 (#750 Mistletoe) will not be granted access to
that primary street. This taxlot has over 400' linear feet of frontage on Mistletoe
and numerous concept plans we have been working on and designing with
prospective tenants include at least one ingress/egress point on this street. The
dimension of that lot and vehicle flow only work with one significant access onto
the primary street. This a grave concern for us and never something that was
brought up to us during public meetings or during the walkthru's.
8. Pg. 80 states that only 20% of developable area should be dedicated to parking, by
doing so you force underground parking (an enviable but cost prohibitive option)
in order to achieve existing sq. ft. potential or you have shrunk our potential sq. ft.
(a VERY difficult pill to swallow after having given up property to the City and
incurred significant development costs using the current standards). I am all for
limiting parking lots but the reality is parking drives building sizes and with
parking limits in this zone the entire Croman Mill area risks being underutilized.
9. Please help me understand how this plan might add costs to our property, we have
paid significantly to develop our parcel and do not want to be hit with additional
LID type charges or specific tax assessments simply because we are located in or
around the planned area. If there are tangible benefits, I am not against sharing in
the costs but being forced to without knowing what they are seems umeasonable.
I hope to have more time to review this document thoroughly but wanted to give you my
initial thoughts regarding impacts on my property before tonight's meeting. I hope to
offer some constructive input regarding the plan overall and my experience working with
prospective real life tenants wanting to move to this area of town.
Bill, I understand and appreciate how complicated this process is and that the work done
to date is significant, professional, and likely stressful for you and the staff. While my
comments above are specific to my property and mostly in a concerned tone, I do know
that this isn't just about my property and hope to work with you and staff constructively
on my issues and the overall plan too. In the end, I hope that the City can be respectful of
current property owners, developments, and neighbors while simultaneously considering
the fact that decisions made on this plan can affect Ashland's viability for the next 100+
years.
Thanks Bill,
Mark DiRienzo
Co-Owner
Mistletoe Road Business Park
621-8393
(
Page 1 of2
April Lucas - Croman Mill discussion items
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Melanie Mindlin <sassetta@mind.net>
Pam Marsh <pam.marsh@gmai1.com>, Bill Molnar <molnarb@ashland.or.us>
9/912009 11 :35 AM
Croman Mill discussion items
Maria Harris <maria@ashland.or.us>, April Lucas <lucasa@ashland.or.us>, Tom Dimitre
<dimitre@mind.net>, Mike Morris <msquared@mind.net>, Larry Blake <blakel@sou.edu>,
Michael Dawkins <michaeltdawkins@yahoo.com>, Debbie Miller <hmiller@jeffnet.org>,
Dave Dotterrer <thedotts@charter.net>, Eric Navickas <eric@counci1.ashland.or.us>
Dear Pam, Commissioners and staff,
Thank you for inviting commissioners to add items for discussion at the September study session on Croman Mill. I regret that I was out
of town at the meeting where the initial list was generated. I have a number of items I believe are important to discuss, listed below,
Melanie Mindlin
1. Sustainability has been an issue in this project from the very beginning. At the beginning of the Crandall-Arambula Plan, in the Guiding
Principles, they include "Mandate sustainable and green development codes." During a number of PC discussions on sustainability in
general, staff has stated that we can "address sustainability within the context of the Croman Mill Plan." It has been suggested at times by
both staff and councilors that LEED standards would be applied to the Croman Mill Plan. I wish to see the sustainability aspect of the
Plan clearly laid out for discussion, In my opinion, such a discussion should include the following:
a) solar orientation
b) green streets
c) on-site water conservation, infiltration and re-use standards substantially above code
d) green building standards substantially above code
e) methods for encouraging or incentivizing use of alternative transportation
f) preservation of urban agricultural land
g) protecting options for future rail freight
h) getting actual LEED Neighborhood certification
2, Crandall-Arambula suggest some Sustainable Development Guidelines in their report, and use the word "discretionary" attached to
their implementation, What does this mean? Concerning the relation of the guidelines to the Plan itself:
a) Do we think the items prioritized in the summary, page 77, are the most important sustainability issues to address?
b) Does the Plan meet the guideline, page 78, "Preserve existing pervious surfaces within the 100 year flood plain of wetlands and water
bodies"?
c) Does the Plan meet the guideline, page 79, "Locate a park, green plaza, or square within a 1/6-mile walk of at least 90% of residential
units and business entrances"?
d) Does the Plan meet or allow for the guideline, page 80, "Use less than 20% of the development footprint for surface parking"?
e) Does the Plan meet or allow for the guideline, page 82, "Encourage the use of passive and active solar strategies in the design of block
lengths and orientation and in the design of public spaces"?
3. A detailed plan for future rail freight would include identifying the location of siding, size of reserved parcel, transportation plan for
movement from the siding, and provision for on-site storage,
4, Parking. Review Crandall-Arambula's methodologies for decreasing parking demand and flexibility in parking requirements. Explore
alternatives to parking structure such as city-provided shuttle service or required underground parking, especially as to cost to the City.
5. I second Pam Marsh's request for an inventory of industrial lands and specifically for land suited for currently excluded uses of lumber
yards, sorting yards and recycling centers. The Economic Development report specifically recommended providing for sites of 10 acres or
more. Where do we have such sites?
6. Should excluded "downtown" uses be able to get a conditional use permit? If our goal is to have a multi-use node, should uses be
completely excluded?
7, Annexation of county parcels. This is listed as one of the "key projects" by Crandall-Arambula. When the owner's agent spoke to us
last on the CM Plan, he stated that they believe if they are to build a road through the county parcels, they should be allowed to annex
them. We have discussed a number of issues regarding the county parcels including riparian areas/wetlands, preservation of urban
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4AA 792E4AshDo... 9/912009
Page 2 of2
agriculture, and preservation of the mobile home park, and this issue should be explored thoroughly for the recommendation,
8, Transportation Plan, We need information about how the street system proposed in the Plan relates to the intersection at Tolman and
Ashland Street, the Hwy 5 interchange and access to the Washington Street area. What changes are envisioned or necessitated for
realization of the CM Plan? If these items are being addressed in the Transportation Plan underway in the Transportation Commission and
the Public Works Department, should we be proceeding with this Plan before we have the transportation information?
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4AA 792E4AshDo... 9/912009
From Debbie Miller, 3-19-09
RE: Croman Mill
Dear Bill and PC members,
I came to the computer to type out my concerns about the Croman project, in
case it is discussed at length during the time I am away. I see that I must get in
line! Bill, thanks for your background information and analysis of the Council's
role in this process, I also admit to having missed the early public meetings last
year because we were away. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that residents and the
Council truly expected some of the plans Crandelll -Arambula put forth.
I will try to summarize my thoughts, then comment on a few specific problems I
noted when reading through the latest (March 3) packet.
If Ashland is truly committed to sustainability, which includes using land wisely so
that the city boundaries do not have to expand to accommodate any future
growth, then polices and practices that attract more population is counter to
those goals. I had thought this master plan was primarily to accommodate the
needs of business and industries currently in the area but needing more space
(this is economic health).
The focus by the consultants on business/office complexes that could 1) house
thousands of workers, 2) look just like Wilsonville or Walnut Creek, Calif., and 3)
take space from the intended zoning employment - light manufacturing- does not
seem to fit the city's needs or character. This area was saved from residential
use several years ago, because its current zoning would make possible more
jobs in M-1, much more needed than housing. Business offices can be placed in
several sites in town, some built and others planned. The large 'office park'
concept is so suburban and not fitting for this area.
I believe Tom questioned the feasibility of aDaT moving any time soon. Would
not having the residential component be a problem? Did I correctly read the
possibility of 190 units of housing?? That would accommodate 450 residents--
why?! The schematic drawings show a realignment of Tolman Creek Road, using
aDaT property. Bill, I saw somewhat this same pattern in a town where I lived,
and it is not simple or pretty. I see all sorts of traffic problems here, with every
vehicle needing to stop and turn. It seems to cut off those streets to the west
rather than make them a part of the plan ( which they are not, but will definitely
be impacted). I would strenuously argue to retain the street structure, and if truly
most traffic is heading onto the Mistletoe/'signature' street, put in a roundabout.
Although I am a big fan of bicycling and mass transit, RVTD has been reducing
lines and service for the past few years. If that continues, this area might now be
served for a long while.
I join others in thinking that the industrial spaces should back up to the railroad
lines for access, should it ever revitalize. Views of the hills can be had from most
any place on that property. What is the proposed fate of businesses already on
Mistletoe and near Siskiyou Blvd. (ex., Blackstone Books?). I assume they would
be incorporated into this plan. And, lastly, does the county land need to be
annexed? I have talked to the young man who farms there; he was distressed to
learn a road might go through his lettuce patch. Again, if we are promoting
sustainability we need to watch land uses,
The siting of parking spaces behind buildings is very encouraging; the streets
and shops will certainly be more attractive.
I do feel badly that we are protesting this plan now that it is on paper, but again,
after our input last August at the public Council-PC meeting, we thought the
consultants had heard our concerns. Thanks for listening. Sincerely, Debbie
p.s. I had occasion to experience the modifications we made to the sign code last
week while in Eugene. We drove west on 3rd Street to REI, which I had read is
located at Lawrence and 3rd. Did not see the store at that intersection, so we
drove up Lawrence for a couple blocks, but did not find it. After turning around
around and returning to 3rd, we saw the large signs both on front (north) side of
building, and the south, but NONE on the east, from the way we approached. So,
that was a good change of the ordinance.
From Tom Dimitre, 3-19-09
RE: Croman Mill
>>> Tom Oimitre <dimitre@mind.net> 03/19/09 8:02 AM >>>
Hi Bill:
I would reiterate my request, made at the last PC, that the PC be provided with
the list of issues raised by the citizens and the PC, and that a presentation be
made at the next PC on how those ideas were incorporated into the draft
Croman plan.
It appears to me that some of the important items raised by the community and
endorsed by the PC are missing. Where is the affordable/workforce housing?
Where are the sustainability features? This appears to be just another
development - not the type of development that citizens and the PC support.
Why is the only housing component placed in the OOOT property - and how do
we know that OOOT will ever vacate their property? This critically important
component may never be built.
It appears to me that something got lost in the translation between the public
input, the PC's comments and the draft plan.
I believe that this property can be a great asset to the City of Ashland. We
should ensure that it fulfills that potential. Remember, this property is being
rezoned - which is a huge benefit to the owner. In exchange, we should insist
that this property be transformed into something that meets the needs of the
community - all of the community.
I'd also like clarification as to what motion was passed by the City Council re this
issue. Maybe you can paste it in and send it to all PCers?
Thanks.
Tom Oimitre
'~i t \ Vt~ clt-\4Jr _ ' _
Ash~ c;oV\A~ U..~d.o~T
S\ Wt~Ltirv\ W4.01 \
A<J~~ I 0(2- "\1 S-2-0
~. I ;07/03
~~~l )
fJ0L'\eiA- ve Ii\ew~, +L~ CfOIl'\~ VvClU
'kcle~r'1M-e~ 'V lc~s ~~~ l. W~S 7l~c-ke4
t6 See- QtcV I-'P~o, Ue,9f lAA~+ fVOf.eV'1
;>v' -T\lE.... C\V d c\) L ~ w ~ -\-k. ~ V OCle\, w ctc.\--\- \'-lfO Ll ~ k
,,-\-, .3 C' e ~V J CA- ~v"<-e V\ l0ltu] J \'lJ l A l1;~ ~ . ,:t
-ttl.t- o-\t\..E- v:- \..>S-CL.<-~ 'J tlAA-A J iA r ll. ~ he-
r--thw-~ %VQ"-J~ -tk '6DtctLe~s+ cUrhQr:
I v~ 1Aes+ '~\;\oo. Jes-Wo':j CL""1
otYc1lU~S ~ Q<A..~'€.. vlMle.. ~Al v~ tltest-
-t\,'\-D'e.' 'c\.e;1M 6. ~ oWe-w. 'l 1M ~eutlctt~
-{'yOWL ~,,-.~\.~ f~~ J A'f<:t.',,\JWV\s ,oJ-
~cvv-Js . \ T-oV \ (t.1JV-~~ --t<:J ~~
ctvv,-\ Use.- ?t- OtLV' rT2p"€-r-r-j W l-Bu:J4-
arprbv~ ,\.~ r.;-'^- iLcceF~, C4-..l" T~ .
'f'( e s~ "'*, \/)-'- 0..., ~VJD llL. f lc4L ) to \ +l-
~v olLSc.,u.sSl\:)1,~ W \-\--'^- -H~ lW ouJV\.e.V'
\'6 Wvo '^- <1 ) 'l+ V\;tJ T J.t?,~a.l,
I Q~) 4 ~b ~GV\,c.er lA1:: J.. +Lt\tct \;\.-0
, to \,l s~ ""'T ~ uj~"\, :r\'~l-6, \AM-1 tAA "\ ~\".st- ~
~C) ~\\(ec-t cll~ -tVl-'-~\.c.- ~ $\sk~v\~\c\ CA'~ct\:. ,~\(lt
.l-5 ldevcl.~e. .1\\{ec.tc,~ Cl~\ "-tt~ +Vlttt1c-
c\,ou:w.. \b~~1A,<t.t'(:: , cH- ,~\ \,;v~\ ~ v,^Clkl~,\ tlAA..
G\\Ye~1 \O~ ~ttwJloV\.. WQ(~. If llo,t~-t-
\1\A1Itclte-1 -tt~ tVa.fflCJ CL ~LtcceS:5{dl CrOVtU~
WoJut \0\l\ aeve.lop - STC\-:> NoL0 / "
A~k\Llv<-~ woulJ1 'De. bd\:ev- ~-ff "t;0-
\ eR \tc:. i-l'l.C- A ~ hl d.tA. A .s -t C (--\1-J ~ ("" J O\teY Fl S S
e
e
Ll~. ~T ; S J ~-A IN\tlk. 4k. ~ ~)
"5tSb1iO<^-- }. ~ 2. AI'-€-. Lv'-.~\"e55 /~Ye:ss
o I."'-~ flt5\ '5 Cl1A-~ ~\)\-td<e.. tJ.... --t~fII^-e.:1G<A-.s
lVV\Y~r~\M~ ~ e(J~t'k-'" ~,c fr-ch,,-ve..
+VZt-tt-l~ -f[suS I ----J
I \f\A;~lS+- Lt\~o tolM-~e~T ~t b~- Lclc?s'
~Y\ ",-k~-t Ck~l~ -tl'cLftlc- <9~ I<D[~)
~lkR~lVLll:;tu..\"e- _ Ovv\..c;( ~ -bier-WI clva..u~cyL
l6 ~ L5~ufL-; \eJl\1..,,-~\" ~~ \ro~ (~LuctS
ve\o.L~+- C~ l"11015 w/tl'-~~iL;A-1e..- sian""
ctv:-cu\^-ttJC':. (~ keClU,'-s~ .of: --+W:t, -+le.
c1~ . v~y c:t LLe:0l1:JiALl~~'. duVV\p~ WIL1:eV-
--fv-o\M t(. <;\fbtll/Vl'C,IOY\.. c:,~ auf- froM
~ VvloVl-Ltcve.:( l 00 ~\" {L~J. e ' 1)0
vwt &Uow CV()~,~ ~~. M~ ctlib
COVl6)Ldev- tl~~ ~ OO~ ~v~<sty(AC~V~
LIA-- Q.u..Y <\.Yea.... .-t::, Kee r au.v- re.W'-a.'u" c~
JeV6~ f~\' le.. . \tt~v\ CeI"\/iee1)) wtt-ctct- fVCJ~)
~ S ct \.S \!low- .
.=f>lecL6e- tesFt, (WI ~l\Q5t, ~
Gtllow . us -~ ~ cu,ty- ~~lvte65
v~ r\t\C2t~T Cl~ w..ore.... ~'U\..<;.; e..{ . \ND- ~'-€... M
llct&JLoIA- orl ,^e";lYe... -to iL~\llW ~ll\'l\C... access
---\t"\lO(.l~ ~\.. QUv- ~ fv-vF~, ' Tf S0vV\~ ~~ 0":'1.,
0L~r-- r 1M\.. S' . 1-' e K ~ 0:/1\ to ~'\.1) W \ \N\ V>\ eAu..~"]
~ '^-- S\Vtl'"\1d ~y~~ ~~V\ev-, ~b'72. bt-
\..-t- l.cJe kvwW'K - ~ely ~.G.~(20~~
J ~--ys'H) qt-+'tCf'-t(,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
December 8, 2009
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
RE:
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan - Issue Summary
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 for refinements and to develop an implementing ordinance.
To date, the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to study and evaluate refinements to the
redevelopment plan at seven meetings (3/10/2009, 5/12/2009, 5/26/2009, 7/28/2009, 9/29/2009,10/13/2009, and
11/10/2009). 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 four meetings
(7/15/2009,9/09/2009,10/21/2009,11/18/2009) in order to become familiarized with the original plan, review
the items noted above, and provide updates to each members respective City Commission, group, or
neighborhood.
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 and the Planning Commission for consideration in reviewing the draft
ordinance and design standards.
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.
In an effort to assist the Planning Commission, Croman Advisory Committee, and ultimately the City
Council 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
- 2-
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.
o CAC members stated on 11/18/2009 that the Redevelopment Plan as proposed largely
addresses the goal of promoting employment opportunities and job creation.
. 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.
. 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
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-
· 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.
. 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-
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~'
-4-
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.
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.
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-
· 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.
. 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-l
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-
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.
Sustainability Standards:
Do the sustainable design standards go too far, not go far enough, or seem just about right?
Energy conservation, water conservation, and other sustainability issues have significant crossover with
many other aspects of the plan. Throughout the various meetings before the Planning Commission and
Croman Advisory Committee a number of pertinent concerns have been voiced that address the question
above. In these meetings the following issues were raised:
. Sustainable Development Standards
o Planning Commissioners and CAC Members have suggested that the Low Impact
Development Standards, as opposed to being "recommendations" could potentially be a
"menu" in which developers could select a minimum number from the list (IE. six out of
ten) to comply with the standard.
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-
o Commissioners and Committee members have discussed the proposed height bonus for
LEED Certification and questioned whether additional incentive based standards could
also be applied to promote low impact development or LEED certification (examples-
expedited review, permit cost reductions, parking reductions, Floor Area allowances, etc.)
. Solar Access
In addition to discussions regarding the orientation of buildings relating to the street layout
noted above, Commissioners and CAC members have also discussed the desire to maximize
energy efficiency of individual buildings.
o Orientation of buildings to minimize the solar hearing of buildings by limiting the
buildings east and west exposures when the sun is low on the horizon.
· It has been expressed that passive solar heat gain in larger commercial buildings
is typically to be minimized.
· It was noted at the 11/18/209 CAC meeting that North Light and shaded buildings
are good for the cooling needs of larger commercial buildings.
o Application of the Solar Ordinance.
· The issue of the substantial distances between buildings that would be required
with the application of Ashland's current Solar Ordinance was raised before the
PC on 11/10/09 and the CAC on 11/18/09. This issue arises when applied to
taller buildings (3 stories or more) which otherwise are not developed elsewhere
in Ashland.
· It was noted that preservation of rooftop solar access for collection systems is of
value in the district.
. 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.
o The Commission discussed reductions in parking in consideration of alternative parking
management proposals. At the Planning Commission meeting on 11/10/09
commissioners discussed allowing a reduction in required parking in all CM zones when
a Parking Management Plan is presented as part of development applications
demonstrating a measurable reduction in parking demand.
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~'