HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-09 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
FEBRUARY 9,2010
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes
2. January 26,2010 Planning Commission Minutes
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Advisor's decision to approve a request for
a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (PA
#2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for
development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of
a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the
installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence.
The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval already in place in order to
accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead
poplar trees is also included. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #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.
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
January 12, 2010
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
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
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 to the Mayor's Office.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar indicated the Commission's March Study Session falls over spring break and if a
Study Session is needed they will meet on March 30th instead.
Commission Rinaldi provided a brief update on the Economic Development Technical Advisory Committee. He stated the
group is currently working on a SWOT analysis and if the commissioners have any questions they can contact him later.
Commissioner Marsh recommended adding this to a future agenda so that Rinaldi can provide a more thorough update.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December 8,2009 Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioners DotterrertBlake mts to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
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.
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures and noted the commissioners have been asked to disclose ex
parte contact. Mr. Molnar clarified the commissioners will need to report any conversations they had outside the meetings
where they were exposed to factual information that they will use to deliberate towards a recommendation.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins stated he attended the staff organized site visit and has had conversations with Dr. Morris about the
plan in general and the cost of the infrastructure.
Commissioner Rinaldi stated he had a briefing on the Croman plan with Planning Manager Maria Harris after he was
appointed to the Commission.
Commissioner Miller disclosed that she had spoken with the man who runs the Village Farm and he had voiced his concern
with a road going through his garden. She also had a conversation with an individual who indicated their preference for the
land to remain mostly manufacturing.
Commissioner Dotterrer stated he attended the staff organized site visit.
Commissioner Mindlin stated she has had many conversations over the past year; however her exposure to factual
information was very limited. She stated she has spoken with Mark DiRienzo but they did not discuss anything that was not in
his letter. She has also spoken with the people at the Village Farm and members of the City Council.
Commissioner Blake stated he attended the site visit and has been spoken to by Huelz.
Commissioner Morris stated he attended the site visit and has also been spoken to by Huelz. He disclosed he has spoken to
his parents about the plan and noted his family received notice because their business is near the site. He added nothing was
discussed that changes his views.
Commissioner Marsh stated she has spoken with Huelz about energy efficiency and solar orientation. She has also spoken
with representatives from SOREDI, attended the Council Study Session on this plan, spoke with an Airport Commissioner
about the FAA and height limitations, and has also spoken with Mark Knox.
Commissioner Marsh noted that she will be discussing the issue of quasi-judicial procedures for legislative items further with
staff.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris stated the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the Croman Mill District
implementation plan, which: 1) creates the new CM zoning district, 2) establishes development standards for the CM district,
3) revises existing Land Use Ordinance for consistency, and 4) adopts the 2008 Redevelopment Plan as a supporting
document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a brief overview of the Plan goals
and objections. He reviewed the street framework, the central boulevard phasing, the Tolman Creek Road realignment, the
pedestrian and bicycle framework, the transit framework, the natural and open space areas in the plan, and the parking
framework. Ms. Harris noted the project webpage and stated there is an extensive amount of
documentation posted if anyone is looking for more information.
Ms. Harris explained the proposal before the Commission redistributes allowed uses in the district boundary, focuses on land
efficient/high employment uses, increases the residential density in the neighborhood center, and adds residential uses in
mixed use areas. She stated most of the Croman Mill District is within the city limits and the bulk of it is comprised of the
former Croman Mill site. Ms. Harris stated the current M-1 industrial title is somewhat misleading because this zoning district
allows for a wide range of commercial and employment uses in addition to what most would consider typical industrial uses.
She elaborated that retail, restaurants, offices, nightclubstbars, and hotelstmotels would all be allowed in the M-1 zone, in
addition to industrial uses like manufacturingtassembly warehouses, junk yards, and outside storage. Ms. Harris explained the
proposed Croman Mill District is really a redistribution of many of those uses.
Ms. Harris reviewed the planning application process and stated applicants will still have to go through site review approval;
however proposals in the compatible industrial district will be subject to a smaller set of standards (similar to basic site review),
while projects in the neighborhood commercial, office employment zone, mixed use area, and those located along active edge
streets will go through a process comparable to detail site review. Ms. Harris noted the green development standards, which
focus on site infrastructure, green parking, green streets, and building orientation, and also commented briefly on the major
and minor amendment process.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted there have been 15 meetings on this topic, and tonight's meeting is for the
public to see the whole package and present their comments. He explained the goal is for the Commission to work on
formulating their recommendation to the City Council, and highlighted the following three areas where the Commission could
consider issuing sub-recommendations: 1) inclusion of property outside the district boundary, 2) east-west orientation
alternative, and 3) alignment alternative for the central boulevard. Mr. Molnar reviewed these three items in further detail. In
regards to their first option, he clarified staff is recommending the front of the property on Mistletoe Rd (Mistletoe Storage) be
included in the district boundary in order to keep continuity. In regards to option two, Mr. Molnar displayed the east-west
alternative and stated recommending this layout would provide more opportunity for southern building exposure, but it would
impact block lengths and would require staff to make slight modifications to the minimum lot size requirements. Lastly, option
3 explores a potential realignment of the central boulevard during phase 2 that would look at ways to work around the two
existing buildings.
Mr. Molnar noted the Transportation Commission will be holding a meeting to further explore some of the transportation issues
and will be forwarding their comments to the Commission. As such, the Transportation Commission has requested that the
Planning Commission not make a formal recommendation to the Council until they have received their comments. Mr. Molnar
recommended the Planning Commission hear public testimony and hold a discussion on the options, but to wait and finalize
their motion(s) at the February 9th Planning Commission meeting.
Public Testimonv
David Wick/2560 Eagle Creek LanetSubmitted information on bringing the "Triple Bottom Line" concept to the Croman plan.
Mr. Wick stated this approach is in line with Ashland's values and the idea is for businesses to pay attention to the following
three bottom lines as the key to enhanced prosperity and lasting sustainability: 1) Profit - your established traditional
measures of financial performance, 2) People - commitment to your employees, customers, suppliers and community, and 3)
Planet - reduction of you carbon footprint, resource consumption and pollution. Mr. Wick cited various cities that are using this
approach and requested Ashland incorporate Triple Bottom Line as the framework for the Croman site.
Mike Monterot4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 105, MedfordtStated he represents the property owners of the Croman site
and stated the revised plan is wholly acceptable to his clients. He stated the plan will provide sufficient flexibility to deal with
current and future economic challenges, and he urged the Planning Commission to issue a favorable recommendation to the
City Council.
Mark DiRienzot700 Mistletoe RoadtClarified he owns Mistletoe Road Business Park and shared his concerns with the
proposed plan. Mr. DiRienzo stated the new Croman Mill code language will be impossible to interpret and will create cost-
prohibited developments that businesses cannot practically use. He stated the site will build out slowly, if at all, and stated no
one will be happy with the results. Mr. DiRienzo explained that he has approved plans for a 10,000 sq. ft distillery building for
Organic Nation Vodka and just found out that his land is now proposed to be included in the district boundary and rezoned as
office employment. He added he is also in talks with an energy efficiency engineering company that wants a 15,000 sq. ft.
design and assembly space on his south lot. Mr. DiRienzo stated the new zone prohibits Organic Nation's distillery building,
and he will also lose his other prospective tenant. He stated the proposed road alignment would create a deadly corner
directly in front of his office building on Mistletoe Rd., and the new zoning will make his existing building non-conforming and
they will not be able to build their planned office building. He stated the current M-1 zoning designation of his property
provides freedom to accommodate the needs of actual tenants who are looking for space, not just possible future tenants. He
stated this plan would make his property partially in the Croman Mill District and partially out. Mr. DiRienzo stated he cannot
accept this short notice inclusion of his property into the Croman Mill District without adequate time to review its impacts and
strongly urged the Commission to delay this plan's approval until a review of the practical implementation is completed. He
stated the project has taken this long to assemble, a few more months to ensure they get it right is appropriate.
Staff pointed out the location of Mr. DiRienzo's property and clarified this is the property referenced in staff option 1. It was
noted that up until recently, this area was not included in the plan and staff has presented options to include either all of Mr.
DiRienzo's property, or just the front portion.
Mr. DiRienzo clarified he owns three tax lots along the Mistletoe Rd. frontage and including the frontage of his property in the
Croman District would split the zoning for the middle lot which houses the existing office building and mini-storage complex.
He added the two lots on either side would become office employment and he already has prospective tenants for both of
these lots which are currently zoned M-1. Mr. DiRienzo also clarified his concerns with the blind corner and stated the
proposed angle of the road could create an unsafe transportation issue.
Commissioner Marsh noted Mr. DiRienzo's suggestion to have the feasibility of the plan looked at and asked if there is any
reason why local professionals cannot take what was presented tonight and provide staff with some analysis. She noted
tonight's hearing is just one step in the process and stated there is still time for the professionals in the field to submit their
input.
Marilyn Briggst590 Glenview DrivetStated six years ago the Planning Commission voted to keep the Croman property as
light industrial and voiced her disapproval of the proposed plan. Ms. Briggs stated the plan takes away from infill and there are
office spaces downtown that could be utilized instead of constructing new office buildings on the Croman site. She voiced her
concerns with the firm Crandall Arambula and felt they were not open to public input, and asked that the Commission deny
this proposal.
John Webert295 Mistletoe RoadlVoiced his concern with a proposed bike path and stated it would be located directly behind
his house. He stated there are a lot of homeless people in this area and would prefer to not have them wandering behind his
house.
Commissioner Marsh noted the written testimony that was handed out at the beginning of the meeting and read the letters
aloud. Letters were received from Mark Knox, Stark & Hammond P.C., Knecht Family Trust, Historic Commission Staff
Liaison Derek Seversen, and Transportation Commission Chair Colin Swales.
Commissioner Marsh ctosed the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Marsh noted the public record will remain open and at this point deliberations will be deferred to their February
9,2010 meeting.
Advice from Legal Counsel and Staff
City Attorney Richard Appicello recommended the Commission not begin their deliberations since the record is not closed. He
added the Commission is allowed to identify issues for staff.
Commissioner Dawkins shared his concerns with the plan. He stated they are being asked to up-zone a piece of property and
does not believe a new start up company is going to be able to pay for all the required infrastructure and stringent site review
standards.
Staff commented briefly on the proposed lot sizes and stated the intent was to give businesses room to grow. Ms. Harris
provided examples of existing companies in the area and stated Blackstone Audio is on a one-acre sized lot, and Modern Fan
is just under 2-acres.
Commissioner Dotterrer acknowledged the concerns expressed during the public forum and questioned if the plan places too
high of a standard. He commented on the LEED standards and asked if this would make the Croman plan economically
unviable. Staff clarified the LEED standards only come into effect if an applicant wants a height bonus; however there are
other sustainable standards that are required.
Commissioner Mindlin shared her concerns with minimum building size and the costs involved with developing a phased
concept for start-up businesses. She noted the public concerns raised about parking and asked if they have created a "catch
22". She also asked if it is possible to obtain more input from local professionals as suggested during the public forum. Mr.
Molnar clarified if they would like to pursue this they could recommend that the City Council work with a group of local
professionals and stated it would be most helpful if the Commission could identify specific aspects they would like evaluated.
Commissioner Morris commented that implications are site specific and will depend on the individual lots. He stated he would
be surprised if they could get the type of general comments they desire since there are site specific concerns. Commissioner
Dotterrer questioned if it would be possible to get some type of read-out on whether this plan precludes development. City
Attorney Richard Appicello noted the public hearing has been closed, however the record remains open and the Commission
could ask staff to prepare something that helps them make a judgment about the feasibility of the regulations.
Commissioner Marsh requested staff come back with evidence as to the feasibility of actually developing under the proposed
plan. Commissioner Rinaldi suggested staff instead address the specific concerns raised this evening by Mr. DiRienzo and in
the letter from Mr. Knox (what would this plan do to their development plans?) Mr. Molnar stated that focusing on Mr. DiRienzo
and Mr. Knox's property may be the best approach. He stated in order to bring in a team to evaluate the standards the
Commission would need to identify specific objectives.
Commissioner Marsh clarified it is the Commission's choice as to whether they want to recommend Mr. DiRienzo and Mr.
Knox's property be included in the Croman district boundary. Commissioner Dotterrer asked if staff could elaborate on the
rational for including this property and what the impact would be for not including it.
Commissioner Mindlin noted that the central boulevard would pass through someone's property and asked how this would be
accomplished. Mr. Molnar clarified at this point the roads are not being designed and it is not uncommon for master plans to
identify general areas of connections. Commissioner Marsh noted the staff report indicates the final design of the central
boulevard could fall under Phase 2 and be further evaluated at that time.
Mr. Molnar clarified the City's land inventory and use needs are identified in the Economic Opportunities Analysis and this
information has been provided to the Commission. Ms. Harris added a land inventory of where less restricted manufacturing
uses could go has also previously been provided. Commissioner Marsh requested staff email their previous presentation that
contains this information to the group. Commissioner Miller stated she is also interested in vacant E-1 property that is currently
available.
Commissioner Mindlin voiced her concern with the land at the southern end of the Croman site (Village Farm). Staff clarified
this are was included in the district boundary in the previous version of the plan that was presented to the Council and the
Planning Commission at the beginning of last year. Mr. Molnar questioned why they would want to exclude this area and
stated it is within the City's urban growth boundary, is adjacent to the site and is owned by the same owner as the rest of the
property. He added the plan recommends to not annex this property, but it is included in the plan area. He noted if the
Commission wants to see this area remain as a certain use, they could recommend to the Council that this land be put in a
different zoning designation.
Commissioner Marsh provided clarification on the concept of minority reports. She stated her hope is that one cohesive
minority report be issued to the Council along with their formal recommendation. She added members of the commission who
want to do a minority report should get together and do this. Mr. Appicello clarified the Commission will have to make a motion
for the minority view to be forwarded to the Council, and that motion must pass.
Staff clarified if a property owner has already received planning approval for a project, then their plans are still valid until the
approval period expires.
Commissioner Rinaldi suggested that changes to the proposed accessways should be allowed under the minor approval
process.
Commissioner DotterrertMorris mts to continue the public hearing to the February 9, 2010 Planning Commission
Meeting. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified the record is still open and asked individuals to submit their written testimony by
February 2nd so that it can be included in their meeting packet. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Selection of 2010 Hearings Board Members.
A sign-up sheet was passed around the table. Commissioners Morris, Blake and Dotterrer will serye on the Hearings Board
January through April; Commissioners Miller, Rinaldi and Dawkins will serve May through August; and Commissioners Marsh
and Mindlin will serve along with the newly appointed member September through December.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
January 26,2010
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
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit
applications to the Mayor's office.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted a review of the City's 2007 Economic Opportunities Analysis has been
completed and the report is now available on the City's website. Commissioner Marsh requested this report be distributed to
the Planning Commission at their next meeting. She also noted Commissioner Rinaldi is a member of the Economic
Development Technical Advisory Committee and he will be providing an update at a future meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01610 (Part 1)
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) chapters
18.108.070 and 18.112 concerning timetable tolling.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman stated the Planning Commission previously reviewed this, however the following revisions
have been made to the ordinance that is before them: 1) the appeal tolling period will be equal to the exact number of days
the project is under appeal (not to exceed 24 months), 2) to obtain a tolling period extension an application must be filed, and
3) there are three conditions that must be met in order to receive the extension. Mr. Goldman elaborated on the three
conditions and stated an extension can only be granted if the Staff Advisor determines that the following conditions are met: 1)
a one time extension no longer than 18 months is allowed, 2) the Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which
the applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time limitation,
and 3) Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval;
however an extension may be granted if the requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such
changes. Mr. Goldman clarified applications that would need substantial changes to bring them into compliance with current
code requirements would not be eligible for an extension. He also clarified the extension application will be deemed complete
(pending application review) at the time it is submitted.
B. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01610 (Part 2)
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) chapters
18.108.070 and 18.112 concerning timetable extensions.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the two proposed ordinances address the same sections of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance, however the recession extension is an extension that applies to planning applications approved during a
specific timeframe. He stated the most recent revisions to the ordinance language include: 1) the recession extension period is
for a maximum of 18-months, 2) an application shall be filed for the extension, and 3) the same three conditions (listed above)
as the tolling extension apply. Mr. Goldman clarified in order to be eligible for the recession extension, the planning application
approval has to be currently valid.
Mr. Goldman stated the Commission has two options in terms of which applications will be eligible. Option 1 allows all current
planning applications approved up to the effective date of the ordinance to be eligible, while Option 2 allows current
applications approved prior to July 1, 2009 to be eligible.
Mark Knoxt485 W NevadatStated under typical economic times, the proposed emergency extension ordinance would not be
necessary; however these are not ordinary times. Mr. Knox voiced his support for the proposed ordinance and stated the vast
majority of applicants that would be impacted by this are average citizens, not developers. He commented on the local land
use process and stated not only do applicants have to deal with various City departments, the Planning Commission, and
neighbors; they also have to contend with banks and private consultants. Mr. Knox asked the commissioners to put
themselves into an applicant's shoes and stated what is going on is very much out of the control of the applicants and stated
recommending approval of the ordinance is fair.
Commissioner Marsh noted the article that was passed out at the beginning of the meeting from Colin Swales titled "Myriad
ideas to fill void of empty lots." She also read aloud the written testimony submitted by Mark DiRienzo and Philip Lang.
Marsh stated all three documents will be added to the record and forwarded to the Council.
Commissioners MorristMiller mts to recommend the City Council approve the timetable tolling ordinance. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
In regards to the extension ordinance, Commissioner Marsh re-stated their two options. Commissioner Miller asked how soon
an applicant might know whether or not they are going to receive funding. Mr. Goldman noted the upfront costs that are
required and stated most applicants would want some assurance that funding is available, however they don't really need to
be approved for funding until they are ready to break ground. Mr. Molnar agreed and stated most applicants would want a
commitment from a bank during the initial design states, but it varies.
Mr. Goldman commented briefly on the two options and stated under Option 1, 41 applications would be eligible; and under
Option 2, 35 are eligible. Commissioner Marsh voiced her support for the ordinance with Option 1. Commissioner Morris
agreed and stated the financing rules have changed and many applicants did not know this going in.
Commissioners MorristBlake mts to recommend the City Council approve the timetable extension ordinance with
Option 1. DISCUSSION: Mr. Molnar clarified this is currently scheduled for a Council Hearing on February 16, 2010 and if
approved the ordinance will likely have an effective date in April. Commissioner Dawkins stated he would have felt better
about the ordinance if it had addressed extensions as a whole. He stated everyone knew that a bubble was being created and
does not support making another rule because people invested and it didn't turn out well. Commissioner Miller voiced her
hesitancy with the ordinance and stated she would be more supportive of Option 2. Commissioner Marsh acknowledged the
suggestion to look at extensions in general, but stated granting this extension is the least they can do. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Morris, Mindlin, Marsh and Blake, YES. Commissioners Miller and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
UPDATE
A. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Modernization.
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Map modernization. Ms. Gunter listed the six FEMA recognized flood plains in the City (Ashland Creek, Bear Creek,
Kitchen Creek, Neil Creek, Clay Creek and Hamilton Creek) and stated this flood map modernization project has been going
on for many years at the federal level and reexamines the flood zones to develop detailed digital flood hazard maps. Ms.
Gunter stated FEMA recently released revised preliminary digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) for the City of Ashland
and these preliminary maps reflect current flood risks in areas of recent growth. She noted the existing maps are 27 years old
and are no longer accurate, and the new maps will provide property owners with up to date, reliable and internet accessible
information about their flood risks.
Ms. Gunter explained the City of Ashland is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program and by being a participant
citizens are able to purchase federal flood insurance which is mandatory if you live in a flood zone. In addition, the City
participates in the community rating system which qualifies citizens to receive a 15% discount on the standard insurance
rates. Ms. Gunter stated the most challenging part of this process is that it is out of the City's hands, and if Ashland does not
adopt the revised maps within the established timeline, it will cause a suspension of insurance for the entire community and
Ashland citizens will lose their discount.
Mr. Goldman stated the modernized maps include some areas that were not previously included in the 100-year flood plain
and explained how this may impact property owners in terms of the City's land use code and building code. Staff clarified all
property owners that will be impacted by the new maps will be informed and invited to participate in the public hearing
process. The timeline for this process was briefly outlined and it was noted the final maps will be available later this spring and
the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings in June and July.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Molnar explained the Commission's 4-2 vote on the timetable extension ordinance is not valid because of a provision that
states a majority of the members on the commission (5) need to agree in order to issue a recommendation to the Council. He
stated this provision is in the process of being removed and is not included in the updated Boards and Commission ordinance
currently before the Council. Mr. Molnar explained the Commission has two options: 1) to reconsider their vote and see if there
are five members that are willing to agree, or 2) bring this issue back in March when the recommendation provision is no
longer relevant.
Commissioners BlaketMindlin mts to reconsider the vote. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioners MindlintBlake mts to recommend the City Council approve the timetable extension ordinance without
specifying which option is best. DISCUSSION: Dawkins indicated he is not willing to change his vote. Miller indicated she
would switch her vote, but urged applicants to think before they act and felt this ordinance was abetting people to not be very
responsible. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Commissioner Dawkins,
NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
c ~
~z ~
o~ j
>.J
~~
V'IJ
~
...
c
m
:J
C"
m
Ifj
.0
:J
Ifj
U
C
to
to
>
o
I.
0.
0.
to
Ifj
:J
o
'S
m
I.
0.
m
.c
...
m
ID
~
ID
')
'tl
I:
m
l..
o
"
f/J
:l
l..
o
'tl
I:
m
.c:
f/J
m
to
2 ~
E.. ~
... m "
m~ ...
:i. ...
()..: .c:
to to
o.m
I. 0.
00.
IU
o
...
Cl
C
~
to
m
I.
PLANNING ACTION:
SUBJECT PROPERTIES:
APPLICANT:
DESCRIPTION:
2009~00726
720 Orand view Drive
McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Advisor's decision to approve a
approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Pennit (P A
Sh
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT:
Family Residential; ZONING: R-I-IO;
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
l't ~'$
n:;di
F~ ":1'"'"'/;,< ,1, "",,," -~J>? ~"}i"'","...", ",,-J;J, ""'~ ,""',,,l,,.,,,l>I,,
O;\<tm1.Irt~tlcv'pbnrliiJlg\l'ernp~ate:5'NOT1CE-PC2 NE\V FORM.doc
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.62.040.1 Criteria for Approyal
A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential
hazards caused by the development.
3, That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps 10 reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shaH consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and
the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
(ORD 2808,1997; ORD 2834, 1998; ORD 2951, 2008)
TREE REMOVAL
18.61.080 Crileria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit
An applicant for a Tree Remoyal Perml! shall demonstrate thaI the following criteria are satisfied, The Staff Advisor may require an arborisl's report to
substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and
warrants remoyal,
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that jf is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard
tree may also include a tree Ihat is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and
such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot
reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2, The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the
following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance
requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Sile Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints.
The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate yerification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks; and
3, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feel of
the subject property, The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permilled in the zone, Nothing in this section shall require that the residential
density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative sile plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
other proYisrons of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
(ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2883, 2002)
G:>comm"de\''.planning\Templates'.NOT1C E- pe2 NEW fOR~I.doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
February 9, 2010
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2009-00726
APPLICANT: Lynn and Bill McDonald
LOCATION: 720 Grandview Drive
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: September 23,2009
120'.DAY TIME LIMIT: March 22,2010 (* - with a 60-day extension from applicants)
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18,20 R~1 Single Family Residential District
18,61 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints
18.72.030.B Site Design Review, Exemptions
18,108.020.A.9 Ministerial Actions, Extension of Time
18,108.022 Ministerial Action Time Limits
18.112.030 Revocation - permit expiration
REQUEST: A request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit (P A #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive, The
original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation
Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the
driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension ofutilities to
serve a new single-family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval
already in place in order to accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal
Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
Planning Action #2008-01250, an 18-month extension of Planning Action #2006-01784 was
approved ministerially in August of 2008 as allowed in AMC 18.112,030, to extend the
original approval until Februmy 7,2010.
Planning Action #2006-01784, a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit
(PA #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive was approved by the
City Council in August of 2007. The approval was for development in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement and widening of a portion
of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Gl'andview Drive, the
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 1 of 20
installation of a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family
residence. This application had initially been approved by the PlalU1ing Commission in
March of 2007, and that approval was appealed to the City Council by neighbor BOlU1ie
Brodersen. In August of2007, the Council upheld the PlalU1ing Commission's approval of
the project and Brodersen subsequently appealed the Council decision to the Oregon Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Brodersen made eight assignments of enor in her brief to
LUBA. Of those eight assignments of error only four of them challenged the City's findings
that the applicant complied with the Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
criteria. LUBA agreed with the City that there was substantial evidence to support the City's
interpretation on each one of those assignments of error, and the City's approval of the
project was affirmed by LUBA. (In addition to those arguments, Brodersen had included
four additional assignments of error that did not involve the criteria for a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Revie.w Permit. LUBA found that the argument that Chapter
18.62 was in violation of state land use Goal 5 was a collateral attack and that argument
was therefore barred. L UBA then stated it did not have to decide the three remaining errors
because those arguments were not specific to a Physical & Environmental Constraints
Review Permit.)
The applicants initially applied for and received a building permit (BD-2004-00284) to
construct a single family residence in 2004. Neighbor BOlU1ie Brodersen appealed the
issuance of the building permit to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) alleging
that certain land use approvals were required. The applicants chose a "voluntary remand" of
the permit decision and the City agreed to address Brodersen's assignments of error. At this
level, because of the voluntary remand, the appeal was not reviewed by LUBA and no errors
were adjudicated or determined by LUBA. Because the original decision was not a land use
decision but rather a building permit, the applicants were required to submit a land use
application for the proposed development and to address the alleged assignments of error.
B. Detailed Descriptlon of the Site and Proposal
Site Description
The subject propeliy is a vacant, approximately 0.54-acre rectangular lot located on the nOlih
side of Orandview Drive. This pOliion of Orandview Drive is the western terminus of the
city street, and is located west of the intersection with Wrights Creek Drive. Orandview
Drive in this vicinity is a gravel road.
The subject property contains slopes of approximately a 14-percent grade sloping downhill in
an easterly and northeasterly direction. The application survey identifies three trees on the
site including a cluster of plum trees and two poplar trees that are eight- and ten~inches in
diameter-at-breast-height (d,b.h.). The two poplars are identified as being dead. The
remainder of the site is covered primarily in native grasses. One of the forks of Wrights
Creek, a Riparian Preservation Creek, runs to the south of the subject property. The creek is
culvelied to the south of Grandview Drive and daylights at the edge of the Orandview Drive
right-of-way near the southwestern corner of the parcel. The top of the creek bank, and the
associated protection zone extending 20-feet beyond the top of bank, are patiially located in
the southwest corner ofthe parcel and is identified on the Topographic Survey included in
the application.
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant McDonald, Lynn & BiH
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 2 of 20
The subject parcel as well as the surrounding propeliies to the east} north and south are
located in the R-I-10 Single-Family Residential zoning district. The Ashland city limits are
located on the western border of the property. As a result, the propeliies to the west ofthe
parcel are under the jurisdiction of Jackson County. There are several parcels to the nOlih
and to the east of the subject propeliy that are also vacant.
A segment of the Wrights Creek drainage runs generally parallel to and south of Wrights
Creek Drive in this vicinity, and is cu1velied at driveway crossings for properties on the south
side of the road. The creek turns nOlih and is culvelied under Wrights Creek Drive,
daylighting approximately 22 feet southwest of the subject propeliy's southwestern-most
corner,
An existing driveway currently provides access to the subject parcel as well as the parcel to
the west at 507 Grandview Drive. This shared driveway splits off from Orandview Drive
within the right-of-way approximately 40 feet east of the subject property, and Grandview
Drive continues to the southwest. The driveway splits again shOlily after entering the subject
propelty, with one driveway going to the nOlih onto the subject property, and the other
driveway continuing west to serve the residence located at 507 Grandview Drive. The
driveway is surfaced in gravel and varies from nine to 15 feet in width. The property located
at 507 Grandview Drive contains an existing single-family residence and is located outside of
the Ashland city limits, The pOliion ofthe driveway serving 507 Grandview Drive is located
within a 20-foot wide access easement that traverses the southern pOliion of the subject
parcel.
This shared driveway also crosses the corner ofthe vacant propelty to the east of the subject
propelty (39 1 E 05 CD Tax Lot #411). The previous owner of Tax Lot #411 had authorized
the applicants to proceed with their original application in anticipation of granting an access
easement. However subsequent to the approval of PI arming Action #2006-01784, Tax Lot
#411 was sold and the new owner (the appellant) has been unwilling to allow the applicants
an access easement over the cornel' of this lot. The modifications making up the current
application are proposed by the applicants as a response to the loss of this access, which
requires that the proposed driveway be extended fmiher into the right-of-way and
consequently further towards Wrights Creek in order to provide access from the street right-
of-way to the subject property.
Amendment/Modification of Phvslcal & Environmental Constraints Review Permit Proposal
It is impOltant to first clarify that the scope of review for the Physical Constraints Review
Permit, both in the original application and the proposed modification here, is limited to the
development of the portion of the driveway and utility trenches located within the floodplain.
The single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain, and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit. The
propelty is located in the R.l-l 0 Single-Family Residential zoning district} and a single-
family home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a
single- family home requires only a building permit, and does not require a land use action in
and of itself,
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 3 of 20
Planning Action #2006-01784, the previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit, allowed for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway) the
re-grading of the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive) the installation of a private
storm drain, and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The
applicants are now proposing to modify this approval in order to accommodate changes in
vehicular access) as the neighboring property to the east was sold subsequent to the previous
approval and the new owner (the appellant here) has been unwilling to provide the access
easement over the corner of the parcel which is necessary to access the subject propelty in a
manner consistent with the existing approval.
In response to this change in vehicular access, the proposed modification places the access
drive in closer proximity to the creek by approximately 13 feet in order to avoid the comer of
the neighbor's property while providing the necessary driveway width and clearance.
Previously approved improvements would have resulted in approximately 324 square feet of
disturbance within the riparian zone) and avoided disturbance between the top of bank and
the centerline of the creek. With the current proposal, the disturbed area has been increased
to 743 square feet, and 275 square feet of this disturbance is below the identified top of bank.
Tree Removal Proposal
The application includes a request to remove two poplars (populus nigra) identified as Tree
#4 and Tree #5 on the tree inventOlY provided. These trees are located on the southern
poliion ofthe subject property, roughly near the centerline of the lot. Both trees are located
more than twenty feet from the top of the creek bank identified in the application in an area
with a slope of less than 25 percent according to city geographic information system (GIS)
data) and as such their removal is not subject to review under the Physical & Environmental
Constraints Ordinance,
Tree #4 is described as being nine-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b,h,) and is
identified as dead; Tree #5 is described as being six-inches d,b.h, and is also identified as
being dead. Tree removal on vacant) residentially-zoned property is subject to permitting
only for the removal of significant trees (Le. those having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger
in diameter at breast height) as noted in AMC 18.61.042,D.1.c. In addition, the removal of
dead trees is specifically exempted from regulation in AMC 18.61.035.G.
Given the trees' locations, their sizes and the fact that they are dead; staff determined in the
initial administrative approval that no tree removal permit were required for the applicants to
remove these two poplars.
Site Review Proposal
The application submittal includes a request for Site Review approval as the question of
whether Site Review approval was required for the proposed home was raised during an
appeal of the original application. On appeal, the Site Review requirement was ultimately
rejected by the City Council) and that rejection upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals,
Ordinance modifications made subsequent to the original approval also specifically address
this issue in AMC 18.72,030 in listing exemptions:
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 4 of 20
B. Exemptions. The following devetopment is exempt from Site Design Review
apptication and procedure requirements provided that the development
complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter.
1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessoty
structures and uses.
The proposal is not subject to requirements for Site Review approval.
II. Proiect Impact
The Land Use Ordinance provides for amendments or modifications to the conditions of
approval of previously approved 'Type l' planning actions as a miscellaneous action subject
to 'Type l' review (Le. administrative approval) under AMC 18.108.040.A.2.a. The
application was initially approved administratively on November 6,2009, with the decision
specifically addressing the elements of the proposal which were subject to modification and
the whole record of the previously approved action being modified adopted by reference.
Neighbor Bonnie Brodersen subsequently appealed the approval on November 20, 2009.
The applicants requested that the hearing of the appeal be delayed as their attorney was
unavailable at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on December 8,
2009, and with this request, the applicants granted a 60wday extension to the 120-day time
limit.
Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
As noted above, the scope of review for the Physical Constraints Review Permit, both in the
original application and the proposed modification here, is limited to the development of the
pOltion of the driveway and utility trenches located within the Wrights Creek floodplain.
The single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the floodplain and are
not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit review. The propelty is located in the
R-I-10 Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a single-family home is an outright
permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a single-family home
requires a building permit, and does not require a land use action in and of itself.
Planning Action #2006-01784, the previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit, allowed for development in the Wrights Creek floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, the
re-grading of the transition ofthe driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation of a private
storm drain, and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The
applicants are now proposing to modify the approval to accommodate changes in vehicular
access, as the neighboring property to the east was sold subsequent to the previous approval
and the new owner (the appellant) has been unwilling to provide the access easement over
the corner of the parcel which is necessary to access the subject property in a manner
consistent with the existing approval.
The proposed modification places the access drive in closer proximity to the creek by
approximately 13 feet in order to avoid the corner of the neighbor's property while providing
the necessary driveway width. The previously approved improvements would have resulted
in approximately 324 square feet of disturbance within the riparian zone, and avoided
disturbance between the top of bank and the centerline of the creek. With the current
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & BiH
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 5 of 20
proposal, the disturbed area has been increased to 743 square feet, and 275 square feet ofthis
disturbance is below the identified top of bank.
The submittals note that all imported material to be used for driveway construction is to be
placed at the original ground elevation, so that there is no additional fill which would impede
floodwaters. A Grading Plan prepared by Thornton Engineering, Inc. has been provided by
the applicants to demonstrate how the grading necessalY to accommodate the proposed
driveway is to be accomplished, to specifically delineate the disturbed area within the
Riparian Preservations Lands and to illustrate the relationship of the disturbance to the creek,
top of bank, and to existing improvements already in place.
The applicants have proposed to utilize permeable asphalt for the driveway surface to control
drainage and filter possible pollutants through the driveway's sand and gravel base, and they
have also proposed to plant riparian-appropriate ground cover and shrubs in the area to curb
erosion and assist in screening the creek. In addition, the applicants propose to utilize a
combination of silt fencing, hay bales, "V" ditches and underground drainage pipes to convey
drainage. Drainage and Erosion Control Plans prepared by the project civil engineers,
Thornton Engineering, Inc. have been provided.
A Tree Protection Plan and arborist's reports have been provided to address protection of the
trees to be retained on and adjacent to the site. These materials note that Tree #1, a 28-inch
Ponderosa Pine within the Grandview Drive rightwof-way and the Riparian Protection Zone,
merits special attention given the proximity of the driveway access to the tree's trunk. The
project arborist, Tom Myers of Upper Limb wIt, notes that Grandview Drive and associated
gravel driveways are already within the tree's protection zone. He indicates that the standard
tree protection fencing around the protection zone will need to be adjusted to the edge ofthe
existing road improvement rather than the typical installation which would fence to the full
extent of the 28-foot radius ofthe tree protection zone. Myers also indicates that an arborist
will need to be on-site when paving begins to ensure that allnecessmy precautions are taken
to protect the tree. Myers recommends that paving of the driveway be done with minimal
grading to minimize root damage, noting that it would be preferable to raise the grade of the
road surface within the tree's protection zone rather than cutting and filling to achieve the
desired road surface. Myers also recommends that equipment be kept away from the trees
trunk in order to avoid structural damage, and he indicates that if these precautions are taken
the tree should survive the proposed construction without damaging its health. The
application materials note that the engineered design proposed was developed based on these
recommendations.
The Tree Commission reviewed arborist Myers' recommendations at their meeting of
October 8, 2009. They were in general conCUlTence, emphasizing that a permeable material
should be used within the tree protection zone and that the driveway be installed at surface
grade within the tree protection zone. The Commission also recommended that the tree be
pruned to I3-feet 6-inches above the finished driving surface prior to site work to provide
adequate vehicular and fire apparatus clearance, In their discussion, Tree Commissioners
noted that Ponderosa Pines are generally better able to handle construction and compaction
when traffic is concentrated closer to the trunk where stabilizing roots are located, and that
this could be preferable to having traffic and compaction concentrated more to the outer,
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 6 of 20
smaller feeder roots. The Tree Commission had additional recommendations with regard to
the project's Tree Protection, specifically that tree protection fencing be provided along the
west property line to protect trees on the property to the west, at 507 Grandview Drive, from
impacts relating to driveway construction and that tree preservation and protection measures
listed in the arborist's recommendations be followed during driveway construction adjacent
to this property, A condition has been included below requiring that a revised Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan be provided incorporating the recommendations of the Tree
Commission.
The Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands require that trees over six
inches be retained to the greatest extent feasible and limit fill to streets, access and utilities,
noting that any crossings shall occur at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent
possible. Fill is to be kept to a minimum and the general topography of the Riparian
Preservation lands is to be retained. As proposed, the applicants have provided a plan for
retaining and protecting Tree #1, the Ponderosa Pine located on the Riparian Preservation
Lands affected here. The work proposed is limited to that necessalY to provide access and
utilities to a single family home on a single family residentially~zoned lot and is to be
installed within existing Orandview Drive street right-of-way. While no new crossing of
Wrights Creek is being proposed, the angle of the transition from the existing street to the
new driveway improvements minimizes the disturbance within the Riparian Preservation
Lands while responding to applicable driveway standards, avoiding the neighboring propelty
to the east, and retaining and protecting the Ponderosa Pine. The application notes that
imported fill materials for driveway construction are to be placed at the original ground
elevation, generally retaining the existing topography to the extent possible and avoiding
additional fill that would impede floodwaters, In considering these impacts, staff noted that
the existing topography is located within existing street right-of-way and already
accommodates established driveways in the immediate vicinity, The applicable
Development Standards for Flood Plain C011'idor Lands set limits for fill, but expressly
allows outside fill material associated with public and private street and driveway
construction as proposed herein provided that it is "kept to a minimum," In staffs view, the
proposed installation of a driveway at the minimum allowed width from the only available
adjacent right-of-way, installed to the original ground elevation so as not to impede flood
waters and limited to permeable materials, can be found to be kept to a minimum,
The applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
Specifically, the applicant has proposed grading, drainage and erosion control measures as
well as the placement of improvements, use of permeable paving materials, minimization of
fill and revegetation to minimize the impacts of the proposal. While these impacts have
increased over the original approval, the applicants' response to changes in available
vehicular access is the minimum necessmy to provide vehicular access to the site from the
only available adjacent right-of-way while avoiding impacts to the adjacent Tax Lot #411 or
the large Pondel'Osa Pine, and appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed in detail
in the application materials.
The section of Grandview Drive from the intersection with Wrights Creek Drive to the
subject parcel is located within 20 feet from the top of bank ofa fork ofWrights Creek, and
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Slaff Report
Page 7 of 20
therefore is located in Floodplain COll'idor Lands. Grandview Drive is a public street right-
of~way and the section of Grandview Drive from the intersection with Wrights Creek Drive
to the southeast corner of the subject parcel was dedicated as street right-of-way in 1971.
The portion of the Grandview Drive right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary ofthe
subject parcel was dedicated as pati of the land partition process that created the parcel in
1979. Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints including development
standards for riparian corridor lands was adopted in 1986.
The floodplain was obviously altered at some time in the past in the construction of
Grandview Drive and the adjacent driveways. The section of the driveway that serves the
subject property is an existing driveway that is improved with a gravel surface, In review of
the Land Partition file that created the subject parcel, Grandview Drive was in place and was
required to be re-graded as a condition of the plalll1ing approval. This indicates that the
gravel driving surface that constitutes Grandview Drive was in place at least as far back as
1979, The applicants call110t control the location of Grandview Drive, nor can they change
the fact that it was platted adjacent to and in a riparian corridor. Furthermore, the applicants
did not have any influence over the location of Grandview Drive. The previously established
location of the street rightwof-way dictates the location of the driveway access and utility
cOlll1ections to serve the subject parcel. Given the location of the Grandview Drive right-of-
way, there are no alternative locations available for the driveway or private storm drain line
located outside of the Wrights Creek floodplain,
An alternative access to the subject parcel is not available because the subject propeliy is not
adjacent to any other street right-of-ways, nor does it have any other available access
easements. In staffs opinion, the impact to the Wrights Creek floodplain occurred prior to
the current proposal when Grandview Drive and the existing shared driveway were located
and constructed. FUlihermore, regardless of the development of the subject parcel, the
existing gravel driveway will continue to serve the existing home on the adjacent parcel to
the west at 507 Grandview Drive.
In staff s view, the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on
the environment. Theil' proposal preserves and protects the large Ponderosa Pine, and the
improvements proposed are limited to those necessmy to provide access and utilities to a
single family home on a single family residentially-zoned lot fr9m the only adjacent, existing
street right-of-way available to provide utilities and vehicular access. The driveway is
proposed at the minimum widths and clearances allowed by city standard, is to be installed in
permeable materials, and grading and erosion control plans have been provided
demonstrating the effOlis to be made to minimize fill and control erosion.
Initial Concerns Raised by Bonnie Brodersen
During the initial comment period prior to administrative approval, neighbor Bonnie Brodersen met
with staff on-site and submitted comments identif).ring ten issues of concern as detailed in her letter of
October 8,2009. These concerns were carefully considered in reviewing the proposed modifications.
The concerns and staff responses thereto are briefly summarized below:
1) That there are not code provisions for amending a previously approved application, and the current
application must be processed as a new action.
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 8 of 20
As noted in the narrative above, the Land Use Ordinance provides for amendments or
modifications to the conditions of approval of previously approved Type I planning actions
as a miscellaneous action subject to Type I review (Le. administrative approval) under AMC
18.108.040.A.2.a.
2) That the applicants' proposed driveway wlll negatively effect entry onto the public street from TL #411
because the proposal places the driveway in part in the right-of-way,
ImpOlied materials for driveway construction are to be placed at original ground elevation, as
noted and illustrated on the grading plan provided. With these improvements installed at the
original ground level, and within public right-of-way, it does not appear that physical access
to the parcel would be negatively impacted. While the driveway improvements proposed are
to be installed to provide access to the applicantsl parcell they are located within public street
right-of-way and no easement would be required for the owners oftax lot #411 to cross them
in gaining access to their property.
Landscape improvements within the right-of-way just south of the frontage of tax lot
41 1 outlined in the applicants landscape plan submittal could present a barrier to future
vehicular access to that site, and as such, a condition of approval has been added to require
that these plant materials be removed from a revised landscape plan to be provided before
building pennit approval.
3) That the applicants' proposal changes the topography and natural state of the Riparian Preservation
area within the City-owned right-of-way.
The City-owned right-of-way predates current regulations and provides the only available
access to the subject propeliy. As indicated on the applicants' grading plan, the proposal
generally maintains the existing grade and topography, As noted in the Council findings for
the previous approval, absolute in situ preservation of Riparian Preservation Lands is not
required the Code and alteration is permitted under many specific elements within the
Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands and to require otherwise would
render the standards themselves moot.
4) That the 28-inch Ponderosa Pine may not survive the proposed development in the riparian area;
A Tree Protection Plan prepared by a local celiified arborist has been provided. This plan
includes specific recommendations intended to preserve and protect the Ponderosa Pine
given the development proposed, and notes that the tree should survive the construction
process without damage to its health. This plan was reviewed by the City's Tree
Commission, and they made recommendations in support of the plan.
5) That the applicants' utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek which flows
into Bear Creek, protected as a water quality limited creek, and may be a violation of Ashland's DEQ-approved
TMDL plan.
In the original application, the Planning Commission determined that direct discharge into
Wrights Creek may not be appropriate given its Riparian Preservation designation. A
condition (#5) was added to the original approval requiring pre-treatment measures; this
Planning Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 9 of 20
condition was reviewed and accepted as appropriate by the Council on appeal and was agreed
to by the applicants. The condition remains in effect, and the applicants will need to address
the requirements of the condition prior to permit issuance.
6) That there is no estimate of the amount of fill required orwhether the project can be feasibly completed
using only on-site fill.
The Development Standards for Flood Plain Conidor Lands expressly provide for the use of
off-site fill within the limitations of AMC 18.62.070.A.3. Off-site fill in the form of
aggregate base, paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street
and driveway construction are expressly permitted. All fill proposed within the Riparian
Preservation and Flood Plain Corridor Lands in the application is limited to these purposes.
7) That the AMC requires applications for all permits required of the development to be submitted
simultaneously, and that the city should require findings that the applicant can meet all requirements of the
zoning district and for issuance of an encroachment permit simultaneously.
The requirement that other applications be filed simultaneously and reviews conducted
simultaneously within AMC 18.62.040.E and 0 refers to Site Review, Performance
Standards Development, Conditional Use Permits, Subdivisions, Pat1itions, master site plans
or other plaill1ing actions and does not apply to other permits such as encroaclunents which
have other reviewing authorities and/or may require that land use approval be in place prior
to review. In this instance, the applicants have submitted for the applicable planning action
approvals, and a building permit application has also been made although the building permit
review is on hold pending land use approval.
8) That there is no documentation in the PlannIng Department file that the MacDonald's property was
legally created and is a legal lot of record,
This argument was considered and rejected by the Council during the last appeal of the
original approval, and that rejection was upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals. The lot
status is not an applicable approval criterion; however in the Council findings for the original
approval the City Council previously found that the lot was legally created pursuant to a 1981
partition plat, and that the plat was valid.
9) That the proposal places a driveway in the middle of a riparian area where Wrights Creek daylights
within the city right-of-way, that the riparian area is elevated from approximately one to four feet, and that there
is no information on how the topography of the riparian preservation area wIll be retained while placing a
driveway through the daylighted area.
The applicants have provided a grading plan from a licensed professional engineering firm
illustrating the proposed driveway installation. Plan details and notes illustrate installation of
the driveway at original ground elevation and identify both the existing and proposed finish
grades.
10) That there are no studies of how run-off from a driveway in excess of 250 feet, a required turnaround,
and large home site will affect the floodplain corridor which flooded in 1997.
The scope of review for the Physical Constraints Review Permit, both in the original
application and the modifications proposed here, is limited to only that p011ion of the
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 10 of 20
driveway and utility trenches located in the floodplain. The single-family home and most of
the driveway are not located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain, and as a result are not subject
to the Physical Constraints Review Permit The property is located in the R-1-1O Single-
Family Residential zoning district, and a single-family home is an outright permitted use. As
an outright permitted use, the construction of a single-family home requires only a building
permit, and does not require a planning action in and of itself.
Appeal Issues Raised by Bonnie Brodersen
Following a November 6,2009 administrative approval, neighbor Bonnie Brodersen appealed the
application. The issues she raised and staff responses thereto are provided below:
1) The City states the application is a "modification of conditions of approval." This is not a modification
but a new application which more than doubles the square footage of construction, places driveway In a new
location, adds new proposals, e.g, drainage ditches et ai, the changes proposed are the "meat" of the original
application. This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
918.1 08,040A requires that this be reviewed as a new application,
As noted in the narrative above, the Land Use Ordinance explicitly provides for amendments
or modifications to the conditions of approval of previously approved Type I planning
actions as a miscellaneous action subject to Type I review (Le, administrative approval)
under AMC 18.108.040.A.2.a.
2) There can be no "modification" of a permit that is revoked. The City ignores the AMC which is clear on
its face, This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
918.112,030 requires that the permit was revoked on 8/07t08.
The "error" referred to is in fact an attempt to appeal a previously approved ministerial action
which extended the applicants' original land use approval, and which was not appealed - or
what is often referred to as a "collateral attack." AMC 18.112.030 notes that planning
actions are deemed revoked if not used within one year from the date of approval, unless
another time period is specified in another section of the Land Use Ordinance. The previous
land use approval was extended as a ministerial action as specified in another section of the
ordinance, in AMC 18.1 08.020.A, which empowers the Staff Advisor to review and approve
the extension of time limits of approved planning actions as provided in AMC 18.112.030,
The applicants made application for an 18-month extension as Planning Action #2008-01250
on July 30, 2008 and paid the required fee for a ministerial action on August 6, 2008 - prior
to the previous approval's expiration on August 7, 2008. This extension request was
reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor. On August 20, 2008 - within 21 days of the
extension being requested, and thus within the timeframe allowed by ordinance - written
notice of the extension's approval was provided to the applicants. As explained in AMC
18.108.070.A, ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff
Advisor and are not subject to appeal. To challenge a ministerial action, the appellant would
need to have raised the issue before the Land Use Board of Appeals or in Circuit Court
within 21 days of becoming aware of what she believed to be an error. While this issue was
raised by the appellant in her hearing request to the city in November, indicating that she was
aware of it, no attempt has been made to address that error through proper legal chatmels
Planning Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning DiVision - Staff Report
Page 11 of 20
within the time limits prescribed by law and as such the ministerial action's approval by the
Staff Advisor may not be challenged through this hearing.
3) This application is for a severe constraints land and the city has failed to apply the review required for
development on said land, This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland
Municipal Code S 18.62.050 requires that the city apply provisions for severe constraints land.
Severe constraints lands are defined in AMC 18.62.050.D as "Lands with severe
development characteristics which generally limit normal development. The following lands
are classified as Severe Constraint Lands: 1) All areas which are within the floodway
channels, as defined in Chapter 15.10; and 2) All lands with a slope greater than 35 percent."
While the Physical & Environmental Constraints Ordinance (AMC 18.62) classes all lands within 20
feet of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation as Flood Plain Corridor Lands, the floodway
channel is much more narrowly defined to those lands defined as such under AMC 15.10.
AMC 15.10.050(1) defines the flood-way as, "... that channel of a river or other lvatercourse and the
adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base jlood without cumulatively
increasing the water surface elevation more than one (1) foot." 15.1 0.050(D) ftnther defines a base
floods as, ".,. the jl ood having a one percent (1 %) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year. Also referred to as the '100-yearjlood'. Designation onjlood maps always includes the letters
A or V" Under the general provisions for that chapter, AMC 9S 15.10.060.A. ftnther clarifies that
"This Chapter shall apply to all areas of special jlood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City of
Ashland, Oregon." The basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard is explained in AMC
S I 5.1 0.060.B as "The areas of special jlood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance
Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study: City of
Ashland, Oregon, Jackson County", dated June 1, 1981, with accompanying Flood Insurance Maps is
hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The Flood Insurance Study
and accompanying maps (as updated) are onfite at City Hall, Ashland, Oregon." No area of special
flood hazard, floodplain, floodway or floodway channel was identified for Wrights Creek or its
tributaries in this vicinity as patt ofthe study cited (see Staff Exhibit 8-1 taken from "Floodway Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map for the City of Ashland, Oregon, Jackson County Community Panel 1 of
3 Community-Panel Number 41 00900001 Effective Date June I, 1981" showing no areas ofspecial
flood hazard.)
In the absence of the requisite federal study, the applicants' engineer Mike Thornton of Thornton
Engineering, Inc. has prepared a "Flood Analysis" and delineated the 100-year flood boundary,
concluding that, "The improvements comply with both sections IS. I 0 (Flood Damage Prevention
Regulations) and 18.62,070 (Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands). The proposed
improvements are more than 20 feet beyond the flood plain boundary and are not located within a
flood hazard area or within a floodway." (See July 20, 2009 letter fi'om Thornton and applicants'
sUPPOlting sheet C- 3.) Based on both Chapter 15. I 0 and the flood analysis by Thornton Engineering,
the area of disturbance is outside of the floodway channel.
Based on City of Ashland Geographic Information System (GIS) data (see Staff Exhibit S-2)
and on-site observations by staff, there are no lands with slopes greater than 35 percent in the
area proposed for disturbance; and as such the area in question is not classified as "Severe
Planning Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 12 of 20
Constraints Lands" and is not subject to the development standards associated with those
lands.
4) Piping of stormwater directly into Wrights Creek, an historically fish-bearing creek, violates Ashland's
Master Stormwater & Drainage Plan, the Bear Creek Watershed TMDL's (as applied to the City) & it's NPDES
Phase 2 permit and the federal Clean Water Act. Dumping of large amounts of water at one time creates
erosion of the creek bank at the point of entry. Best Management Practices and required state permits have not
been addressed, Further, the City is approving the dumping of stormwater runoff from a City property into
Wrights Creek where it is located outside of the city and in the county. The City has not addressed how county
ordinances/approvals come into play.
In the original application, the Planning Commission determined that direct discharge into
Wrights Creek may not be appropriate given its Riparian Preservation designation. A
condition (#5) was added to the original approval requiring pre-treatment measures; this
condition was reviewed and accepted as appropriate by the Council on appeal and was agreed
to by the applicants. The condition remains in effect, and the applicants will need to address
the requirements of the condition prior to permit issuance as well as obtaining any necessalY
permits or approvals from other jurisdictions which may have authority, such as Jackson
County.
5) The City has failed to enforce Street Standards requirements: (See for example, AMC 18.88.050(8).
With the proposed development, Grandview Drive will provide access to four or more homes, Four driveways
within a few feet of each other will enter Grandview Drive. Implementation of mandatory Street Standards will
fall within the riparian/floodplain corridors requiring a physical and environmental constraints review.
The propelty is located in the R-I-I 0 Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a single-
family home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a
single-family home requires only a building permit and is not subject to a land use action
which would require street improvements to comply with Street Standards. The application
involves the construction of a private driveway within the Orandview Drive right-of-way,
and because of its length the driveway is subject to, and complies with, the width and paving
standards for a flag drive found in AMC 18.76.060.B. Where serving two lots or being
shared by adjacent properties, the flag drive must have a 20-foot width with a IS-foot paved
driving surface, Where the drive serves only one lot it may be reduced to a l5-foot width
with a 12-foot paved driving surface.
6) The City's findings are inadequate when the City states "imported fill materials for driveway
construction are to be placed at the "original ground elevation" and Applicants Narrative provides no info on how
a 20-foot wide paved driveway will be placed at the original ground elevation when Grandview Drive sits
anywhere between 2-9 feet below the elevated ripariantwetland.
The applicants have provided a grading plan from a licensed professional engineering firm,
Thornton Engineering, Inc., illustrating the proposed driveway installation, The grading plan
details and notes illustrate installation of the driveway at the original ground elevation and
identify both the existing grade and proposed finish grades. Based on this plan, the area of
disturbance within Grandview Drive is at most one to four feet above the existing grade at
the tree - not two to nine feet below it - and finished grade details and section drawings are
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 13 of 20
provided to demonstrate how the driveway installation is to be accomplished. (See
applicants' Sheet C-l.)
7) City's Order violates the Tree Ordinance when Applicant's arborist recommends the "paving of the new
road should be done with a minimum of grading In order to keep root damage to a minimum, n yet there are no
findings on how close to the surface the tree root system is, how the root system wlll be protected, how the
driveway's sand and gravel base will affect the root system, how compaction from heavy construction equipment
will affect the significant pine and oak trees and how a permanent paved driveway extending from the trunk of
the pine and over its drip line will affect its long-term survival and the long-term survival of the riparian area.
A Tree Protection Plan and arborist's reports have been provided to address protection of the
trees to be retained on and adjacent to the site. These materials note that Tree #1, a 28-inch
Ponderosa Pine within the Orandview Drive right-of-way and the Riparian Protection Zone,
merits special attention given the proximity of the driveway access to the tree's trunk. The
project arborist, Tom Myers of Upper Limb-It, notes that Orandview Drive and associated
gravel driveways are already in use within the tree's protection zone, He indicates that the
standard tree protection fencing around the protection zone will need to be adjusted to the
edge of the existing road improvement rather than the typical installation which would fence
to the full extent of the 28-foot radius of the tree protection zone. Myers also indicates that
an arborist will need to be on-site when paving begins to ensure that all necessary
precautions are taken to protect the tree, Myers recommends that paving of the driveway be
done with minimal grading to minimize root damage, noting that it would be preferable to
raise the grade of the road surface within the tree's protection zone rather than cutting and
filling to achieve the desired road surface. Myers also recommends that equipment be kept
away from the trees trunk in order to avoid structural damage, and he indicates that if these
precautions are taken the tree should survive the proposed construction without damaging its
health, The application materials note that the engineered design proposed was developed
based on these recommendations.
The Tree Commission reviewed arborist Myers' recommendations at their meeting of
October 8, 2009, They were in general concurrence, emphasizing that a permeable material
should be used within the tree protection zone and that the driveway be installed at surface
grade within the tree protection zone. The Commission also recommended that the tree be
pruned to 13-feet 6-inches above the finished driving surface prior to site work to provide
adequate vehicular and fire apparatus clearance. In their discussion, Tree Commissioners
noted that Ponderosa Pines are generally better able to handle construction and compaction
when traffic is concentrated closer to the trunk where stabilizing roots are located, and that
this could be preferable to having traffic and compaction concentrated more to the outer,
smaller feeder roots. The Tree Commission had additional recommendations with regard to
the project's Tree Protection, specifically that tree protection fencing be provided along the
west property line to protect trees on the property to the west, at 507 Grandview Drive, from
impacts relating to driveway construction and that tree preservation and protection measures
listed in the arborist's recommendations be followed during driveway construction adjacent
to this property. A condition has been included below requiring that a revised Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan be provided incorporating the recommendations of the Tree
Commission,
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Sill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 140f20
8) The City violates ALUa 18.62.075 requiring that "the general topography of riparian preservation lands
shall be retained" because, among other things, the new proposals (placing 743 square feet of driveway in the
protected riparian corridor and 275 square feet below the top of the bank of the creek) will decimate the
topography of the riparian area which is in the city-owned right-of-way. It's incomprehensible that the City
spends time/money/energy restoring the fish-habitat of lower Wrights Creek, while at the same time
relinquishing the City-owned (right-of-way) Wrights Creek riparian corridor at Grandview Drive, to destructive
private development, which development will cause irretrievable harm by reducing shade and wildlife habitat,
increasing sediment flow into the Creek and increasing water temperature, among other things.
The City-owned right-of-way predates current regulations and provides the only available
access to the subject property. As indicated on the applicants' grading plan, prepared by a
licensed professional engineer, the proposal generally maintains the existing grade and
topography. As noted in the Council findings for the previous approval, absolute in situ
preservation of Riparian Preservation Lands is not required the Code and alteration is
permitted under many specific elements within the Development Standards for Flood Plain
Corridor Lands and to require otherwise would render the standards themselves moot.
9) The City fails to enforce ALUa 18.62.070 and violates the NDES Phase II permit when it fails to find
that the toe of the fill will be kept at least 10 feet out of floodway channels and when it fails to determine how
much fill is being used. Is a removalffill permit required? There is no finding about how the development will
affect flow of surface waters and bank erosion.
As noted above, no floodway channel is defined for this tributary of Wrights Creek as
determined by the scientific and engineering studies conducted by FEMA and referenced as
the basis for a floodway determination in AMC Chapter 15.10. An analysis by the
applicants' engineer, Thomton Engineering, Inc. has determined that the area of disturbance
is more than 20 feet beyond the flood plain boundmy, which would also place it more than 20
feet from the floodway channel.
The Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands expressly provide for the use of
off-site fill within the limitations of AMC 18.62.070 (A)(3). Off-site fill in the form of
aggregate base, paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street
and driveway construction are expressly permitted without a specific limitation on the
amount of fill used for these purposes beyond that it be "kept to a minimum". In this
instance, all fill proposed within the Riparian Preservation and Flood Plain Conidor Lands in
the application is limited to these purposes and is being used to construct a paved driveway
to minimum city standards within existing right-of-way which already accommodates a
gravel driveway. This fill is to be installed to existing ground level except within the tree
protection zone to accommodate the tree protection recommendations of the project arborist,
which were supported by the Tree Commission in their review and which were a basis of the
engineered plans. The engineered plans provided detail the proposed driveway installation
and associated grading and erosion control, and in staff's view clearly demonstrate that the
proposed fill in the Flood Plain Corridor has been kept to a minimum.
10) The City engages in an unconstitutional taking of property when it allows applicant's proposed
driveway to be constructed over a public city-owned right-of-way, which right-of-way provides in part,
unobstructed access to tax lot#411. Ingress and egress for tax lot#411 onto Grandview Drive was approved by
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 15 of 20
the City when tax lot #411 was created by partition years ago. Further, because Applicant's property is located
to the west and sits significantly below tax lot #411, there is a blind area at the point where a vehicle from tax lot
#411 will enter the public right-of-way. In other words, both driveways will meet at a "V". If the applicant's
driveway is constructed as proposed this will create a dangerous intersection where a vehicle from applicant's
property could collide with a vehicle entering from tax lot #411 because of vision clearance issues. ather issues
the City hasn't addressed include: who will be liable in the event of an injury on that area ofthe driveway located
in the public right-of-way which would have to be used for ingress and egress to both tax lot #411 and
applicants' property. Who will be responsible for maintaining that area of the driveway? Note that the City
found "problems with access to the lot," in 1982 in advising a minor land partition. The City is compounding the
problem it was instrumental in causing by previous code-violating actions.
Imported materials for driveway construction are to be placed at original ground elevation, as
noted and illustrated on the grading plan provided. With these improvements installed at the
original ground level, and within public right-of-way, it does not appear that physical access
to tax lot #411 would be obstructed beyond any already existing topographic obstruction.
While the driveway improvements proposed are to be installed to provide access to the
applicants' parcel, they are located within public street right-of-way and no easement would
be required for the owners oftax lot #411 to cross them in gaining access to their property.
Landscape improvements within the right-of-way just south of the frontage of tax lot
#411outlined in the applicants landscape plan submittal could present a barrier to future
vehicular access to that site, and as such, a condition of approval has been recommended to
require that these plant materials be removed from a revised landscape plan to be provided
before building permit approval.
The driveway installation would be subject to a demonstration of compliance with the vision
clearance requirements of the ordinance at building permit. This would limit the height of
obstructions within a ten foot triangle around the property corner, and it would be the
applicants' responsibility to maintain the driveway as approved. In the event of an accident,
the police and/or the court system would make an ultimate determination of liability
following investigation of the specifics of the incident in light of applicable laws in place at
the time.
11) All assignments of error appeal to LUBA which LUBA did not decide or which LUBA denied because
said assignments of error were not ripe for decision or were considered dicta for appeal (Final Order for LUBA
No. 2007-162) are hereby incorporated by reference and considered part of this appeal to the Planning
Commission.
Neighbor Bonnie Brodersen, the appellant, made eight assignments of elTor in her brief to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Of those eight assignments of error, only four
challenged the City's findings that the applicant complied with the Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit criteria. LUBA agreed with the City that there was substantial
evidence to support the City's interpretation on each one of those assignments of el1'0r.
Ms. Brodersen had challenged whether the plan submittal requirements detailed in AMC
18 .62.040(H)(1 ) (m), (n) and (q) were met. Those provisions require:
Planning Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 16 of 20
m Accurate locations of all exisUng natural features including, but not limited to, all
trees as required in 18.62.080.0.1, including those of a caliper equal to or greater
than six inches d.b.h., native shrub masses with a diameter often feet or greater,
natural drainage, swales, wetlands, ponds, springs, or creeks on the site, and
outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Natural features on adjacent properties
potenUally impacted by the proposed development shall also be included, such as
trees with driplines extending across property lines. In forested areas, it is necessary
to identify only those trees which will be affected or removed by the proposed
development. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature.
n. The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control, and tree protection for
the development as required by this chapter.
q. LocaUon of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways, building
sites, and other construction areas. Indicate total area of disturbance, total
percentage of project site proposed for disturbance, and maximum depths and
heights of cuts and fill.
LUBA denied this assignment of error, noting that the application was limited in scope and
did not apply to the development of the entire subject propelty but rather only the limited
portion within the riparian/floodplain area that was subject to the Physical & Environmental
Constraints Review Permit. LUBA then concluded that the appellant had failed to explain
why more information was needed to address specific approval criteria than was provided on
the plans.
With the current modification proposal} the applicants have provided a site plan and
supporting topographic surveys identifying trees and natural features on and adjacent to the
site, and a tree protection plan and supplementary recommendations from the project mborist
detailing measures necessmy to provide tree protection} so the requirements of AMC
18.62.040(H)(1 )(m) have been satisfied. To comply with 18.62.040(H)(1 )(n), Erosion
Control plans have also been provided from the project engineer specifying construction
entrance preparations, inlet protection, sediment fencing placement, drainage ditches, and
wattle/fiber roll installation necessmy to address erosion and run-off. The Grading Plan
meets the requirements of AMC 18.62.040(H)(I)( q) because it clearly specifies the area of
disturbance as 743 square feet within the Riparian Protection Zone, although this is not
specified as a percentage of the site area because the bulk of this disturbance is within the
right-of~way rather than on the site. The plan notes fmiher address 18,62.040(H)(1)(q) as
well as the Development Standards for Flood Plain Conidor Lands in 18.62.070(A)(3)
because they clearly indicate that all imported material is to be placed at the original ground
elevation so that there will be no excess fill which would impede flood waters, and this is
supported with the grading details and section drawings provided.
In addition to those arguments the appellant included four additional assignments of error
that did not involve the criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review permit.
LUBA found that appellant's argument that Chapter 18.62 of the Land Use Ordinance was in
violation of the state's GoalS was a collateral attack and the argument was therefore barred.
LUBA then stated that it did not have to decide the three remaining assignments of ell'or
because the arguments made were not specific to a Physical & Environmental Constraints
Review permit. Because the current appeal request is again a challenge to a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Review permit, these assignments of error are not related to the
request being considered by the Commission, or the applicable approval criteria, and are not
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 17 of 20
further addressed here.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are descl'ibed in AMC
Chapter 18.62.040 as follows:
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the
Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the app/icaUon of the development standards of this chapter, the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered,
and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the
development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potenUal
hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse
impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible acUons. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission
shaJl consider the exisUng development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
(Ord 2834 S1, 1998)
(ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J"deleted'; Ord 2808, Added,
12/02/1997)
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.61.080 as follows:
An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the foJlowing criteria are satisfied.
The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shaJl issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if
the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear
that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also
include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing
damage to exisUng public or private facilities or seNices and such facilities or
seNices cannot be relocated or the damage aJleviated. The applicant must
demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public
safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing
structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be aJleviated by
treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard
tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigaUon requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shaJl issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is
not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the applicaUon to be
consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements
and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use
Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor
Planning Action PA # 2009.00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.
Page 18 of 20
may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for
accurate verificaUon of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,
soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or exisUng
windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negaUve impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
The City shall grant an excepUon to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow
the properly to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall
require that the residenUal density be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping
designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives
conUnue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant toAMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
As noted above, in staffs view the applicants have carefully considered the proposal in terms of the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
Potential hazards that the development may create have been identified and considered, and the plans
submitted identifY measures to mitigate any potential hazards that might otherwise be created. The
applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impacts of the proposal on the
environment. The proposal preserves and protects the large Ponderosa Pine, and the improvements
proposed are limited to those necessmy to provide access and utilities to a single family home on a
single family residentially-zoned lot from the only adjacent, existing street right-of-way available to
provide utilities and vehicular access. The driveway is proposed at the minimum widths and
clearances allowed under city standards, is to be installed in permeable materials, and grading and
erosion control plans have been provided demonstrating the eff0l1s to be made both to minimize fill
and control erosion. In addition, the applicants have provided a flood analysis prepared by a licensed
professional engineer to demonstrate that the area to be disturbed is more than 20-feet beyond the
1 OO-year flood plain boundary, is not located within a flood hazard area or floodway, and has been
designed not to impede floodwaters regardless of the frequency of the flood-event. Staff would
accordingly recommend approval of the application with the following six conditions attached:
1) That all conditions of Planning Action #2006-01784 shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
2) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
3) That a revised landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted with the building permit.
Plant materials which would impede vehicular access to Tax Lot 411 shall be removed from
this plan. The landscaping shall be installed and irrigated prior to issuance of the certificate
of occupancy.
4) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission's October 81h, 2009 meeting shall be
Planning Action PA # 2009-00726
. Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 19 of 20
incorporated in a revised Tree Protection Plan to be submitted for the review and approval of
the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. These recommendations are: 1) that
the applicants install tree protection fencing along the west prope11y line where proposed
driveway is adjacent to the trees on the neighboring property directly west; 2) that the
measures outlined in narrative of the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan shall be
implemented during excavation and construction of the driveway near west prope11y line at
location of neighbor's shed to where driveway tums back east; 3) that the Ponderosa Pine
tree within public right-of-way shall be pruned prior to sitework to provide adequate
vehicular clearance C13-feet 6-inches above driving surface); 4) that a paver system, cold-
mix asphalt/concrete mix, gravel or similar material shall be used under the dripline of the
Ponderosa Pine where the driveway encroaches into the dripline area; and 5) that the
driveway shall be installed at surface grade within the dripline of the Ponderosa Pine. In
addition, unless the applicants can provide evidence of agreement from the neighbors to the
n011h and east allowing the installation of the proposed tree protection fencing for Trees #7
and #8 on their respective properties, the Tree Protection Plan shall be modified to reflect
placement of the fencing necessary to protect these two trees solely on the applicants'
property.
5) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the requirements of the Fire
Department shall be satisfactorily addressed including: approved addressing; fire apparatus
access including angle of approach, shared access agreements, tum-around, and approval of
any gates or fences; firefighter access pathway; fire flow; fire hydrant distance to structures;
and fire department work area. Temporary addressing must be in place prior to any sitework,
and an approved "fuel break" must be in place prior to bringing combustible materials onto
the site.
6) That a Tree Verification inspection shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to site work, storage of materials or building pellnit issuance. This Verification Permit
is to inspect the COl1'ect identification of the two dead poplar trees to be removed and the
installation oftree protection fencing for the trees to remain on and adjacent to the site. The
tree protection shall consist of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with
18.61.200.B. Property lines shall be clearly identified within and adjacent to the tree
protection zones at the time of inspection.
Planning Aclion PA # 2009-00726
Applicant: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 20 of 20
a.
I- ...a:: 0'
ill :::e w
ill r- QC:CO
Il. Z
1M 1.1.11
0 ~ ~ !I: ;:; !:
0 Il..
~ Z 0 Il.l i:
...: r- ::::il0 Cl 0
0 <<l .-
Il!::: ~ Z XC 1.1.1- ....
::::ll ... ~
II') ~ '" .....uCl >1.0.1 !: ....
W .J III 1;;
.J :E r:d "'" w 1.1.11~ -z i= '-
"" Z ZO I-::l _ i:
U 0 ~ <( ~..... IV .-
Vl ~ Il.. <0 Ol E
w ~~ !I: IQ...... 1.1.. m'tl
I- ,'lI::I" 1.1.. ~ <<l
<1:0 ~Q M~ :>0- w.! E Il.l
~ Zl;.;l !::: Co)
I.4-X >- l:
X l::>;..<!2: o~ :z: IJ <!l
0 ~~Q .....~ :;;;J c ....
a:: :E tI> :l
~ ifJ. Ol '"
~ >tt::Cl:C: ....J1l.. :E .... l::
.( 1.0.1< <l.l .-
Eo< 00 1;;) Z:; (;.) E 7Q
-~~ .cc~ (.) III '-
Q """l III
01 Q..!;! "0
~
0'
<:
'"
i=
o
u.i
..J
/l.
<(
~
<.)
w
2:
o
N
,...
w
w
it:
I-
(J)
Cl
0:
.:
r
<)
tJ:
o
LL
LL
<I;
51
Nov 300904: 15p
rhonda
!
1-061-832-9011
p.2
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2009-00726, a request for a )
modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints )
Review Permit (FA #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview )
Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain I
and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing )
driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the )
installation a private storm drain and the extension ofutiHties to serve a new single-
family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval )
already in place in order to accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request )
for a Tree Removal Pennit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included. )
I APPLICANTS: Ly'nn and Bill McDonald
REQUEST FOR
AN
EXTENSION
OF THE TIME
LIMIT
ORS 227.178(1)
Applicants request a 60-day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1).
~.~
Applicant
~~rfuQ~~
Applicant
r!ll.2 sf tJ C;
J (.. ;)<;~ 0 9
Date
f,? ~ ~~.::. f~_. ~.~.~~) :;~~~
NOV 3 0 2009
(">1",/ " ~. '. " ;": ".~,--l'
C,-,:""'" ":'. .. ....
.. - I', ~ '" I' t', J ~ ,,' .:;.' -'1 -...-, Iii t
.... """J.'>.,i~ ~
[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120wday period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period oftime at the written request ofthe applicant. The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."]
.i
RECEiVE[)
DEe 2 0 2009 If,' O~
Notice of Land Us~ Appeal - Type' I . I Y 0 anc@
Ashland Munlci al Code 18.108.070.B.2.c
A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es):
1.
~3
.e /~ [21)-
~d h rt
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal.
2.
C. Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision: Planning Action #: Title of planning action:
//- Of, -0 r :A6Cfl-- oor;;z(p [?Ay>/c-rl if- s~:~
D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party
For each erson listed above in Box A, check the a ro riate box below.
The person named in D 1)iWl1 the applicant.
Box A.1. above lQf received notice of the planning action.
qualifies as a party D I was entftled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
because: notice due to error.
The person named in
Box A.2. above
qualifies as a party
because:
o I am the applicant.
D I received notice of the planning action.
D I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as
a art.
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modjfied is (attach
additional pages if necessary): ~ ~ S"~ j/1(J. ~~ ..0 ef ....("
'f~~~,t~",,;,,~ .M"d,.fII:..;;LnI/.~1 ~ '"
~.w-Idt(~~ ~ 'Hu ~ .tt4c~tI1) ~/~~ lite(
This Is an error because the applicable criteria or ~r8cedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
9 /S./Og,O'l6A or other law In 9 requires that
attach additional a as if necessa : . k 4 C"4~~
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modifle IS
(attach additional pages If necessary): .~ ~ .tJc. .;Kr J'/x:to~~ It d t.\..
~ ~ ~ ~" 7A( e ~ I~ tfv..I4/1(G ~~
r-t. ,,"'1$ ~.
This Is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
9 (tJ. /I~ . 0300r other law in 9 requires t at
attach additional a es if necessa : ~ Vo 3 0 S-
3. The third 'specific ground for which the decisi n should be reversed or modified is (a ach
E:'~~A::l~fi~~~ r
This iS~fie apPI" criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
9 (1, (oj .050 or other law In 9 requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary): ~ ~- _ (;; ~
,_91:~~~ ~.
..,. ~t#;.
'u
I. ~, d,l,p.4UMr~~<,~'7' ~ ~ d~
Ph. ~ r?~ dAl ~ :i.u.d".( yu ~. ~
4. (On attached pages. list other grounds, In a manner similar to the above, that exist. For
each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other
law that were violated.
Appeal Fee
With this notIce of appeall(we) submit the sum of $0.00 which is the appeal fee required by
9 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date: I//r/or
Signature(s) d{p:rson(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):
-A/~_.~
Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together wIth the appeal fee must be filed
with the Community Development Department, Attn: Planning Commission Secretary, 20 E
Main St, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-5305, prior to the effective date of the
decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth In Ashland MunicIpal
Code Section 18.108.070.
,.
f~~ECE~VED
DEe 2 0 2009
City of Ash~and
,. . ~
r:l ~~~ r"" F" ~ \ l t:' r,'),"
~,J~--o.j 'f;f k-'l~
DEe 2 0 2009
Notice of Land Use Appeal- Type I
Nov. 20, 2009
Appellant: Bonnie Brodersen
CC';HV Ole f1~o'!?'k1't,:,f',',~
, ~ l) J -\..t)~ ~~L.\~ ~t...J
Attachment
4. Piping of stormwater directly into Wrights Creek, an historically fish-bearing
creek, violates Ashland's Master Stormwater & Drainage Plan, The Bear Creek
Watershed TMDL's (as applied to the City) & its NPDES Phase 2 permit and the
federal Clean Water Act. Dumping oflarge amounts of water at one time creates
erosion of the creek bank at the point of entry. Best Management Practices and
required state permits have not been addressed. Further, the City is approving the
dumping of stormwater runoff from a City property into Wrights Creek where it is
located outside of the city and in the county. The City has not addressed how county
ordinances/approval come into play.
5. The City has failed to enforce Street Standards requirements: (See for example,
AMC 18.88.050(B). With the proposed development, Grandview Drive will provide
access to four or more homes. Four driveways within a few feet of each other will
enter Grandview Drive. Implementation of mandatory Street Standards will fall
within the riparian/floodplain corridors requiring a physical and environmental
constraints review.
6. The City's findings are inadequate when the City states "imported fill materials
for driveway construction are to be placed at the "original ground elevation" and
Applicants Narrative provides no info on how a 20' wide paved driveway will be
placed at the original ground elevation when Grandview Drive sits anywhere
between 2-9 feet below the elevated green riparian/wetland.
7. City's Order violates the Tree Ordinance when Applicant's arborist recommends
the "paving ofthe new road should be done with a minimum of grading in order to
keep root damage to a minimum," yet there are no findings on how close to the
surface the tree root system is, how the root system will be protected, how the
driveway's sand and gravel base will affect the root system, how compaction from
heavy construction equipment will affect the significant pine and oak trees and how
a permanent paved driveway extending from the trunk ofthe pine and over its drip
line will affect its long-term survival and the long term survival of the riparian area.
8. The City violates ALUO 18.62.075 requiring that "the general topography of
riparian preservation lands shall be retained" because, among other things, the new
proposals (placing 743 sq ft of driveway in the protected riparian corridor and 275
sq ft below the top ofthe bank ofthe creek) will decimate the topography of the
riparian area which is in the city-owned ROW. It's incomprehensible that the City
spends time/money/energy restoring the fish-habitat of lower Wrights Creek, while
at the same time relinquishing the City-owned (ROW) Wrights Creek riparian
corridor at Grandview Drive, to destructive private development, which
development will cause irretrievable harm by reducing shade and wildlife habitat,
increasing sediment flow into the Creek and increasing water temperature, among
other things.
9. The City fails to enforce ALua 18.62.070 and violates its NDES Phase II permit
when it fails to find that the toe of the fill will be kept at least 10 feet out of floodway
channels and when it fails to determine how much fill is being used. Is a
removal/fill permit required? There is no finding about how the development will
affect flow of surface waters and bank erosion.
10. The City engages in an unconstitutional taking of property when it allows
applicant's proposed driveway to be constructed over a public city-owned ROW,
which ROW provides in part, unobstructed access to TL 411. Ingress & egress for TL
411 onto Grandview Dr. was approved by the City when TL 411 was created by
partition years ago. Further, because Applicant's property is located to the west,
and sits significantly below TL 411, there is a blind area at the point where a vehicle
from TL 411 will enter the public ROW. In other words, both driveways will meet at
a A. Ifthe applicant's driveway is constructed as proposed this will create a
dangerous intersection where a vehicle from applicant's property could collide wI a
vehicle entering from TL 411 blc of vision clearance issues. Other issues the City
hasn't addressed include: who will be liable in the event of injury on that area of the
driveway located in the public ROW which would have to be used for ingress and
egress to both TL 411 and applicants property. Who will be responsible for
maintaining that area of the driveway? Note that the City found "problems w /
access to lot," in 1982 in advising on a minor land partition. The City is
compounding the problems it was instrumental in causing by previous code-
violating actions.
11. All assignments of error appealed to LUBA which LUBA did not decide or which
LUBA denied blc said assignments of error were not ripe for decision or were
considered dicta for that appeal (Final Order for LUBA No. 2007-162) are hereby
incorporated by reference and considered part of this appeal to the Planning
Commission.
~'{ECE~VEO
DEe 2 0 2009
rl''-;~'\~.f 0" ~ 1\, c-h1"'\fI'\("
~}~~J ,~r~;5~ ~.~{)i~ G~~.J
CITY OF
ASHLAND
November 9,2009
Bill & Lynn McDonald
8621 Oak Branch Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Notice of Final Decision
On November 6,2009, the Staff Advisor for the Ashland Planning Division administratively approved
your request for the following:
A modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit (P A
#2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for
development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a
portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the
installation a private storm drain and the extension ofuti]ities to serve a new single-family residence. The
proposed modification involves alterations to the approval to accommodate changes in vehicular access.
A request for a Tree Remova] Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included. .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-1O;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500
The Staff Advisor's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13lh day after the Notice of Final
Decision is mailed.
Prior to that date, anyone who was mailed this Notice Of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of
the action by the Staff Advisor as set fOlih in the Ashland Land Vse Ordinance (ALVO)
18.1 08.070(B)(2)(b) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in the ALUO
l8.108.070(B)(2)(c).
An appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Oregon law states that failure to
raise an objection concerning this application, 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 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 Department to respond to the
issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available
for review at no cost at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies offile documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Department of Community
Development between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Parties of Record
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Slreel
Ashland, Oregon 97520
W'MY.ashland.or.u5
Tel: 541-<188-5305
Fax; 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Penuit (P A #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The
original approval was for development in the WriglIts Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for
the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to
Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval already in place in order to
accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal Pennit to remove two dead poplar
trees is also included.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-I-lO;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500
SUBMITTAL DATE:
DEEMED COMPLETE DATE:
STAFF APPROVAL DATE:
FINAL DECISION DATE:
APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE:
June 5, 2009
September 23,2009
November 6, 2009
November 22, 2009
November 22, 2010
DECISION
The proposal is a request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Pennit (P A #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The
original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for
the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to
Grandview Drive. the installation of a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence. P A-2008-01250, an IS-month extension of Planning Action #2006-01784 was approved
ministerially as allowed in AMC 18.112.030, and the original approval thus remains valid until February 7,
2010. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval to accommodate changes in vehicular
access. A request for a Tree Removal Pennit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
The subject property is a vacant, approximately O.54-acre rectangular lot located on the north side of
Grandview Drive. This portion ofGrandview Drive is the western terminus of the city street, and is located
west ofthe intersection with Wrights Creek Drive. Grandview Drive in this vicinity is a gravel road.
The subject property contains slopes of approximately a 14 percent grade sloping downhill in an easterly and
northeasterly direction. The application survey identifies three trees on the site including a cluster of plum
trees and two poplar trees that are eight- and ten-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.). The two
poplars are identified as being dead. The remainder of the site is covered primarily in native grasses. One of
the forks ofWrights Creek, a Riparian Preservation Creek, runs to the south of the subject property. The
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview DriveIDS
Page 1
creek is culverted to the south of Grand view Drive and daylights at the edge of the Grandview Drive right~
of-way near the southwestern corner ofthe parcel. The top of the creek bank, and the associated protection
zone extending 20-feet beyond the top of bank, are partially located in the southwest corner of the parcel and
is identified on the Topographic Survey included in the application.
The subject parcel as well as the surrounding properties to the east, north and south are located in the R-l-1 0
Single-Family Residential zoning district. The Ashland city limits are located on the western border of the
property. As a result, the properties to the west of the parcel are under the jurisdiction of Jackson County.
There are several parcels to the north and to the east of the subject property that are also vacant.
A segment of the Wrights Creek drainage runs generally parallel to and south ofWrights Creek Drive in this
vicinity, and is culverted at driveway crossings for properties on the south side of the road. The creek turns
north and is culverted under Wrights Creek Drive, daylighting approximately 22 feet southwest of the
subject property's southwestern-most comer.
An existing driveway currently provides access to the subject parcel as well as the parcel to the west at 507
Grandview Drive. This shared driveway splits off from Grandview Drive within the right-of~way
approximately 40 feet east of the subject property, and Grandview Drive continues to the southwest. The
driveway splits again shortly after entering the subject property, with one driveway going to the north onto
the subject property, and the other driveway continuing west to serve the residence located at 507 Grandview
Drive. The driveway is surfaced in gravel agl1 varies from nine to 15 feet in width. The property located at
507 Grandview Drive contains an existing ~gle-fami1yresidence and is located outside of the Ashland city
limits. The portion of the driveway serving 507 Grandview Drive is located within a 20-foot wide access
easement that traverses the southern portion of the subject parcel.
This shared driveway also crosses the comer of the vacant property to the east of the subject property (39 IE
05 CD Tax Lot #411). The previous owner of Tax Lot #411 had authorized the applicants to proceed with
their original application in anticipation of granting an access easement. However subsequent to the
approval of Planning Action #2006-01784, Tax Lot #411 was sold and the new owner has been unwilling to
allow the applicants an access easement over the comer of this lot. The modifications making up the current
application are proposed by the applicants as a response 00 the loss of this access, which requires that the
proposed driveway be extended further into the right-of-way and consequently further towards Wright's
Creek in order to provide access from the street right-of-way to the subject property.
ModifIcation
The Land Use Ordinance provides for wnendments or modifications to the conditions of approval of
previously approved Type I planning actions as a miscellaneous action subject to Type I review (i.e.
administrative approval) under AMC 18.1 08.040.A.2.a. The whole record of the original approval is thus
adopted here by reference, with the decision below to address those elements of the proposal which are
subject to modification with the request.
Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit
It is important to first clarify that the scope of review for a Physical Constraints Review Pennit, both in the
original application and the proposed modification here, is limited to the development of the portion of the
driveway and utility trenches located in the floodplain. The single--family home and most ofthe driveway
are not located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain, and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview DrivelDS
Page 2
Review Permit. The property is located In the R-l-lO Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a
single-family home is an outright pennitted use. As an outright pennitted use. the construction ofa single-
family home requires a building permit, and does not require a planning action in and of itself.
Planning Action #2006-01784, the previously approved Physical and Environmental Constraints Review
Permit, allowed for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the
improvement of a portion of an existing ?riveway, the re-grading of the transition of the driveway to
Grandview Drive, the installation of a private storm drain, and the extension of utilities to serve a new
single- family residence. The applicants are now proposing to modify this approval in order to accommodate
changes in vehicular access, as the neighboring property to the east was sold subsequent to the previous
approval and the new owner has been unwilling to provide the access easement over the comer ofthe parcel
which is necessary to access the subject property in a manner consistent with the existing approval.
In response to this change in vehicular access, the proposed modification places the access drive in closer
proximity to the creek by approximately 13 feet in order to avoid the comer of the neighbor's property while
providing the necessary driveway width. Previously approved improvements would have resulted in
approximately 324 square feet of disturbance within the riparian zone, and avoided disturbance between the
top of bank and the centerline of the creek. With the current proposal, the disturbed area has been increased
to 743 square feet, and 275 square feet ofthis disturbance is below the identified top of bank.
The materials provided note that all imported material to be used for driveway construction is to be placed at
the original ground elevation, so that there is no additional fill which would impede floodwaters. A Grading
Plan prepared by Thornton Engineering, Inc. has been provided by the applicants to demonstrate how the
grading necessary to accommodate the proposed driveway is to be accomplished, to specifically delineate the
disturbed area within the Riparian Preservations Lands and to illustrate the relationship of the disturbance to
the creek, top of bank, and the existing improvements already in place.
The applicants have proposed to utilize permeable asphalt for the driveway surface to control drainage and
filter possible pollutants through the driveway's sand and gravel base, and they have also proposed to plant
riparian-appropriate ground cover and shrubs in the area to curb erosion and assist in screening the creek.
In addition, the applicants propose to utilize a combination of silt fencing, hay bales, HV" ditches and
underground drainage pipes to convey drainage. Drainage and Erosion Control Plans prepared by the project
civil engineers, Thornton Engineering, Inc. have been provided.
A Tree Protection Plan and arborist's reports have been provided to address protection of the trees to be
retained on and adjacent to the site. These materials note that Tree #1, a 28-inch Ponderosa Pine within the
Grandview Drive right-of~way and the Riparian Protection Zone, merits special attention given the proximity
of the driveway access to the tree's trunk. The project arborist, Tom Myers of Upper Limb-It, notes that
Grandview Drive and associated gravel driveways are already within the tree's protection zone. He indicates
that tree protection fencing around the protection zone will need to be adjusted to the edge of the existing
road improvement rather than the typical fencing to the fuJl extent of the 28-footradius of the tree protection
zone. Myers also indicates that an arbonst will need to be on-site when paving begins to ensure that all
necessary precautions are taken to protect the tree. Myers recommends that paving of the driveway be done
with minimal grading to minimize root damage, noting that it would be preferable to raise the grade of the
road surface within the tree's protection zone rather than cutting and filling to achieve the desired road
surface. Myers also recommends that equipment be kept away from the trees trunk in order to avoid
PA #2009~00726
720 Grandview Drive/DS
Page 3
structural damage, and he indicates that if these precautions are taken the tree should survive the proposed
construction without damaging its health. The application materials note that the engineered design
proposed was developed based on these recommendations. The Tree Commission reviewed Myers'
recommendations at their meeting of October 8; they were in general concurrence, emphasizing that a
permeable material should be used within the tree protection zone and that the driveway be installed at
surface grade within the tree protection zone. The Commission also recommended that the tree be pruned to
13-feet 6-inches above the finished driving surface prior to site work to provide adequate vehicular and fire
apparatus clearance. In their discussion, Tree Commissioners noted that Ponderosa Pines are generally better
able to handle construction and compaction when traffic is concentrated closer to the trunk where stabilizing
roots are located, and that this could be preferable to having traffic and compaction concentrated more to the
outer, smaller feeder roots. The Tree Commission had additional recommendations with regard to the
project's Tree Protection, specifically that tree protection fencing be provided along the west property line to
protect trees on the property to the west, at 507 Grandview Drive, from impacts relating to driveway
construction and that tree preservation and protection measures listed in the arborists recommendations be
followed during driveway construction adjacent to this property. A condition has been included below
requiring that a revised Tree Protection and Preservation Plan be provided incorporating the
recommendations of the Tree Commission.
The Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands require that trees over six inches be retained to
the greatest extent feasible and limit fill to streets, access and utilities, noting that any crossings shall occur
at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill is to be kept to a minimum and the
general topography of the Riparian Preservation lands is to be retained. As proposed, the applicants have
provided a plan for retaining and protecting Tree #1, the Ponderosa Pine located on the Riparian
Preservation Lands affected here. The work proposed is limited to that necessary to provide access and
utilities to a single family home on a single family residentially-zoned lot and is to be installed within the
existing Grandview Drive street right-of-way. While no new crossing of the Wright's Creek is being
proposed, the angle of the transition from the existing street to the new driveway improvements minimizes
the disturbance within the Riparian Preservation Lands while responding to applicable driveway standards,
avoiding the neighboring property to the east, and retaining and protecting the Ponderosa Pine. The
application notes that imported fill materials for driveway construction are to be placed at the original
ground elevation, generally retaining the existing topography to the extent possible and avoiding additional
fill that would impede floodwaters. In considering these impacts, staff noted that the existing topography is
located within existing street right-of-way and already accommodates established driveways in the
immediate vicinity. The applicable Development Standards for Flood Plain Conidor Lands set limits for fill,
expressly allowing outside fill material associated with public and private street and driveway construction,
as proposed herein.
The applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented
measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Specifically, the applicant has
proposed grading, drainage and erosion control measures as well as the placement of improvements, use of
permeable paving materials, minimization of fill and revegetation to minimize the impacts of the proposal.
While these impacts have increased over the original approval, the applicants response to changes in
available vehicular access is the minimum necessary to provide vehicular access to the site while avoiding
impacts to the adjacent Tax Lot #411 or the large Ponderosa Pine and appropriate mitigation measures have
been proposed.
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview Drive/DS
Page 4
The section of Grand view Drive from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the subject parcel is located
within 20 feet from the top of bank of a fork of Wrights Creekt and therefore is located in Floodplain
Corridor Lands. Grandview Drive is a public street right-of-way and the section of Grandview Drive from
the intersection with Wrights Creek Drive to the southeast comer of the subject parcel was dedicated as
street right-of-way in 1971. The portion of the Grandview Drive right-of-way adjacent to the southern
boundary of the subject parcel was dedicated as part of the land partition process that created the parcel in
1979. Chapter 18.62t Physical and Environmental Constraints including development standards for riparian
corridor lands was adopted in 1986.
The floodplain was obviously altered at some time in the past in the construction of Grand view Drive and
the adjacent driveways. The section ofthe driveway that serves the subject property is an existing driveway
that is improved with a gravel surface. In review of the Land Partition file that created the subject parcel,
Grandview Drive was in place and was required to be re-graded as a condition of the planning approval.
This indicates that the gravel driving surface that constitutes Grandview Drive was in place at least as far
back as 1979. The applicants cannot control the location of Grand view Drive, nor can they change the fact
that it was platted adjacent to and in a riparian corridor. Furthennore, the applicants did not have any
influence over the location of Grandview Drive. The previously established location of the street right-of-
way dictates the location of the driveway access and utility connections to serve the subject parcel. Given
the location of the Grandview Drive right-of-waYt there are no alternative locations available for the
driveway or private stonn drain line located outside of the Wrights Creek floodplain.
An alternative access to the subject parcel is not available because the subject property is not adjacent to any
other street right-of-ways, nor does it have any other available access easements. In stafrs opinion, the
impact to the Wrights Creek floodplain occurred prior to the current proposal when Grandview Drive and the
existing shared driveway were located and constructed. Furthermore, regardless of the development of the
subject parcelt the driveway will continue to serve the home on the adjacent parcel to the west at 507
Grandview Drive.
In staffs view, the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Their proposal preserves and protects the large Ponderosa Pine, and the improvements
proposed are limited to those necessary to provide access and utilities to a single family home on a single
family residentially-zoned lot from the only adjacent) existing street right-of-way available to provide
utilities and vehicular access. The driveway is proposed at the minimum widths and clearances allowed by
city standard, is to be installed in penneable materials, and grading and erosion control plans have been
provided demonstrating the efforts to be made to minimize fill and control erosion.
Concerns Raised by Bonnie Brodersen
During the comment period, neighbor Bonnie Brodersen met with staff on-site and submitted comments identifYing ten
issues of concern as detailed in her letter of October 8, 2009. These concerns were carefully considered in reviewing
the proposed modifications. The concerns and staff responses thereto are briefly summarized below:
1) That there are not code proviSions for amending a previously approved application, and the current application
must be processed as a new action.
As noted in the nacrati ve above, the Land Use Ordinance provides for amendments or modifications
to the conditions of approval of previously approved Type I planning actions as a miscellaneous
action subject to Type I review (Le. administrative approval) under AMC 18.108.040.A.2.a.
PA #2009-00726
720 Grandview DrivelDS
Page 5
2) That the appllcants' proposed driveway will negallvely effect entry onto the public street from TL #411 because
the proposal places the driveway in part in the right-of-way.
Imported materials for driveway construction are to be placed at original ground elevation, as noted
and illustrated on the grading plan provided. With these improvements installed at the original
ground level, and within public right-of-way, it does not appear that physical access to the parcel
would be negatively impacted. While the driveway improvements proposed are to be installed to
provide access to the applicants' parcel, they are located within public street right-of-way and no
easement would be required for the owners of tax lot #411 to cross them in gaining access to their
property.
Landscape improvements within the right-of-way just south of the frontage of tax lot 41 1 outlined in
the applicants landscape plan submittal could present a barrier to future vehicular access to that site,
and as such, a condition of approval has been added to require that these plant materials be removed
from a revised landscape plan to be provided before building permit approval.
3) That the applicants proposal changes the topography and natural state of the Riparian Preservation area within
the City-owned right-or-way.
The City-owned right-of-way predates current regulations and provides the only available access to
the subject property. As indicated on the: applicants' grading plan, the proposal generally maintains
the existing grade and topography. As noted in the Council findings for the previous approval,
absolute in situ preservation of Riparian Preservation Lands is ~ot required the Code and alteration is
permitted under many specific elements within the Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor
Lands and to require otherwise would render these standards moot.
4) That the 28.inch Ponderosa Pine may not survive the proposed development In the riparian area;
A Tree Protection Plan prepared by a local certified arborist has been provided. This plan includes
specific recommendations intended to preserve and protect the Ponderosa Pine given the
development proposed, and notes that the tree should survive the construction process without
damage to its health. This plan was reviewed by the City's Tree Commission, and they made
recommendations in support of the plan.
5) That the applicants' utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek which flows into Bear
Creek, protected as a water quality limited creek, and may be a violation or Ashland's DEQ-approved TMDL plan.
In the original application, the Planning Commission detennined that direct discharge into Wrights
Creek may not be appropriate given its Riparian Preservation designation. A condition (#5) was
added to the original approval requiring pre-treatment measures; this condition was reviewed and
accepted as appropriate by the Council on appeal and was agreed to by the applicants. The condition
remains in effect, and the applicants will need to address the requirements of the condition prior to
permit issuance.
6) That there is no estimate of the amount of rill required or whether the project can be feasibly completed using
only on-site fill.
The Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands expressly provide for the use of off~site
fill within the limitations of AMC 18.62.070.A.3. Off~site fill in the fonn of aggregate base, paving
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview DriveIDS
Page 6
materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction are
expressly permitted. All fill proposed within the Riparian Preservation and Flood Plain Corridor
Lands in the application is limited to these purposes.
7) That the AMC requires applications for all permits required of the development to be submitted simultaneously,
and that the city should require findings that the applicant can meet all requirements of the zoning district and for
issuance of an encroachment permit simultaneously.
The requirement that other applications be filed simultaneously and reviews conducted
simultaneously within AMC 18.62.040.E and G refers to Site Review, Performance Standards
Development, Conditional Use Permits, Subdivisions, Partitions, master site plans or other planning
actions and does not apply to other permits such as encroachments which have other reviewing
authorities and/or may require that land use approval be in place prior to review. In this instance, the
applicants have submitted for the applicable planning action approvals, and a building permit
application has also been made.
8) That there Is no documentation in the Planning Department file that the MacDonald's property was legally
created and is a legal lot of record.
This argument was considered and rejected by the Council during the last appeal of the original
approval, and that rejection was upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals. The lot status is not an
applicable approval criterion, however in the Council findings for the original approval the City
Council previously found that the lot was legally created pursuant to a 1981 partition plat, and that
the plat was valid.
9) That the proposal places a driveway in the middle of a riparian area where Wrights Creek daylights within the
city right -of -way, that the riparian area is elevated from approximately one to four feet, and that there is no infonnation on
how the topography of the riparian preservation area will be retained while placing a driveway through the daylighted
area.
The applicants have provided a grading plan from a licensed professional engineering firm
illustrating the proposed driveway installation. Plan details and notes illustrate installation of the
driveway at original ground elevation and identify both existing and finish grades.
10) That there are no studies of how run-off from a driveway in excess of 250 feet, a required turnaround, and large
homesite will affect the floodplain corridor with flooded In 1997.
The scope of review for the Physical Constraints Review Permit, both in the original application and
the modifications proposed here, is limited to only that portion of the driveway and utility trenches
located in the floodplain. The single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the
Wrights Creek Floodplaint and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit.
The property is located in the R-l- I 0 Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a single-family
home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction ofa single-family
home requires only a building pennit, and does not require a planning action in and of itself.
Tree Removal Permit
The application includes a request to remove two poplars (populus nigra) identified as Tree #4 and Tree #5
on the tree inventory provided. These trees are located on the southern portion of the subject property,
P A #2009-00126
720 Grandview DrivelDS
Page 7
roughly near the centerline of the lot. Both trees are located more than twenty feet from the top of the creek
bank identified in the application in an area with a slope ofless than 25 percent according to city GIS data,
and as such their removal is not subject to review under the Physical & Environmental Constraints Review
Ordinance. Tree #4 is described as being nine-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) and is identified as
dead; Tree #5 is described as being six-inches d.b.h. and is also identified as being dead.
Tree removal on vacant, residentially-zoned property is subject to pennitting only for the removal of
significant trees (i.e. those having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height) as noted in
AMC 18.61.042.D.l.c. In addition, the removal of dead trees is specifically exempted from regulation in
AMC 18.61.035.0. As such, given both their sizes and the fact that they are dead, staff find that no tree
removal pennit is required for the applicants to remove these two poplars.
Site Review
The application submittal includes a request for Site Review approval as the question of whether Site
Review approval was required for the proposed home was raised during an appeal of the original application.
On appeal, the Site Review requirement and was ultimately rejected by the City Council, and that rejection
upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals. Ordinance modifications made subsequent to the original
approval also specifically address this issuein AMC 18.72.030 in listing exemptions:
B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and
procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards
as set forlh by this Chapter.
1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses.
The proposal is not subject to requirements for Site Review approval.
The criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are described in AMC
Chapter 18.62.040 as foUows:
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be Issued by the Staff
Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential
Impacts to the properly and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse
impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than
reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the
existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
(Ord 2834 S1, 1998)
(ORD 2951, Bl1I8nded, 0710112008; Ord. 2834, Amended, 1110311998, SscIJon 18.62.040 J .d8/eloo'; Ord 2808, Added, 12/()2/1997)
P A #2009-00726
720 Grandview DrivelDS
Page 8
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.61.080 as follows:
An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff
Advisor may require an arborlst's reporl to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it
Is likely to faM and injure persons or properly. A hazard tree may also include a tree
that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or
private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the
damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of
the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to a,., existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shaff Issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards,
Including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical
and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint
of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit
application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soli
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone.
In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions
of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permlf.
The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances. Planning Action
#2009-00726 is approved with the following conditions. Furthert if anyone or more of the following
conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2009-00726 is denied.
The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
P A #2009-00726 .
720 Grandview Drive/DS
Page 9
1) That all conditions of Planning Action #2006-01784 shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
3) That a revised landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted with the building permit. Plant
materials which would impede vehicular access to Tax Lot 411 shall be removed from this plan. The
landscaping shall be installed and irrigated prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
4) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission's October 8"\ 2009 meeting shall be
incorporated in a revised Tree Protection Plan to be submitted for the review and approval of the
Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. These recommendations are: 1) that the
applicants install tree protection fencing along the west property line where proposed driveway is
adjacent to the trees on the neighboring property directly west; 2) that the measures outlined in
narrative of the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan shall be implemented during excavation and
construction of the driveway near west property line at location of neighbor's shed to where
driveway turns back east; 3) that the Ponderosa Pine tree within public right-of-way shall be pruned
prior to sitework to provide adequate vehicular clearance (13-feet 6-inches above driving surface);
4) that a paver system, cold~mix asphalt/concrete mix, gravel or similar material shall be used under
the dripline of the Ponderosa Pine where the driveway encroaches into the dripline area; and 5) that
the driveway shall be installed at surface grade within the dripline of the Ponderosa Pine. In
addition, unless the applicants can provide evidence of agreement from the neighbors to the north
and east allowing the installation of the proposed tree protection fencing for Trees #7 and #8 on their
respective properties, the Tree Protection Plan shall be modified to reflect placement ofthe fencing
necessary to protect these two trees solely on the applicants' property.
5) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the requirements of the Fire Department
shall be satisfactorily addressed including: approved addressing; fire apparatus access including
angle of approach, shared access agreements, turn-around, and approval of any gates or fences;
firefighter access pathway; fire flow; fire hydrant distance to structures; and fire department work
area. Temporary addressing must be in place prior to any sitework, and an approved Hfuel break"
must be in place prior to bringing combustible materials onto the site.
6) That a Tree Verification inspection shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to
site work, storage of materials or building pennit issuance. This Verification Pennit is to inspect the
correct identification of the two dead poplar trees to be removed and the installation of tree
protection fencing for the trees to remain on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall consist
of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. Property lines shall
be clearly identified within and adjacent to the tree protection zones at the time of inspection.
~an~ger - ~~~ember6".2009
Department of Community Development
PA #2009-00726
720 Grandview Drive/DS
Page 10
To: Planning Department
From: Bonnie Brodersen
635 Wrights Creek Dr.
482-0180
Re: McDonald Property; P.A. 2009-00726
Date: October 8, 2009
RECEIVED
OCT 0 8 2009
City of AShland
Comments Submitted by Bonnie Brodersen: Measurement Correction for #9.
1. There are no code provisions for "amending" a previously approved Physical &
Envrionmental Constraints Permit. The Department appears to be treating the application
as a new application for a new permit, but this should be clearly stated.
2. Applicant's proposed driveway will negatively affect entry onto the public street from
TL 411 (culTently undeveloped but which area for ingress/egress is platted), because
Applicant's proposal places it's driveway in part in the ROW that TL 411 would use to
access Grandview Drive.
3. Applicants have proposed un-natural man-made additions to the riparian preservation
area which change the topography and the natural state of the area. People have chosen
to live in this area (on the citylcounty line) because of its natural beauty and semi-rural
feeling. Applicant's proposals not only denigrate the protected riparian area, but will
forever alter the natural state or the riparian area that the neighborhood has cherished.
Note that the area which will be denigrated is not owned by Applicants but is a city-
owned ROW.
4. There is a significant 28" ponderosa pine tree. This tree is in the city-owned ROW
(riparian area where the stream daylights). The tree protection zone radius is 28'. The
grading plan shows the driveway placed within the protection zone and drip-line. It is
noted that the tree may not survive the proposed development in the riparian area. This
would be a significant loss to the riparian area; the tree provides shade for the area; it's
provides wildlife habitat (e.g., a family of quail has been present in the area for over 15
years) and it is the tallest tree in the area where the water daylights. Its root system helps
to stem erosion and further degradation ofthe riparian area.
5. Applicant's utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek
which flows into Bear Creek, protected as a "water quality limited" creek. Is direct
piping of storm water into Wrights Creek a violation of Ashland's TMDL plan, as
approved by DEQ.
6. There is no estimate ofthe amount offill required to develop the area as required by
AMC or whether the project can feasibly be completed using only on-site :fill.
~~'i';~:.(~' ~::.;..~" ;.:;:)
To: Planning Department
From: Bonnie Brodersen
635 Wrights Creek Dr.
482-0180
Re: McDonald Property; P.A. 2009-00726
Date: October 7,2009
OCT 7 2009
... .;p i . ~ ., ;. ~ ,. ~
C;,,:!.~~r(~!~"I:'i) j,.', ,".~.I.:.'r,;::i:(-:.~L
Comments Submitted by Bonnie Brodersen:
1. There are no code provisions for "amending" a previously approved Physical &
Envrionmental Constraints Permit. The Depattment appears to be treating the application
as a new application for a new permit, but this should be clearly stated.
2. Applicant's proposed driveway will negatively affect entry onto the public street from
TL 411 (currently undeveloped but which area for ingress/egress is platted), because
Applicant's proposal places it's driveway in part in the ROW that TL 411 would use to
access Grandview Drive.
3. Applicants have proposed un-natural man-made additions to the riparian preservation
area which change the topography and the natural state of the area. People have chosen
to live in this area (on the city/county line) because of its natural beauty and semi-rural
feeling. Applicant's proposals not only denigrate the protected riparian area, but will
forever alter the natural state or the riparian area that the neighborhood has cherished.
Note that the area which will be denigrated is not owned by Applicants but is a city-
owned ROW.
4. There is a significant 28" ponderosa pine tree. This tree is in the city-owned ROW
(riparian area where the stream daylights). The tree protection zone radius is 28'. The
grading plan shows the driveway placed within the protection zone and drip-line. It is
noted that the tree may not survive the proposed development in the riparian area. This
would be a significant loss to the riparian area; the tree provides shade for the area; it's
provides wildlife habitat (e.g., a family of quail has been present in the area for over 15
years) and it is the tallest tree in the area where the water daylights. Its root system helps
to stem erosion and further degradation ofthe riparian area.
5. Applicant's utility plan shows storm water being piped directly into Wrights Creek
which flows into Bear Creek, protected as a "water quality limited" creek. Is direct
piping of storm water into Wrights Creek a violation of Ashland's TMDL plan, as
approved by DEQ.
6. There is no estimate of the amount offill required to develop the area as required by
AMC or whether the project can feasibly be completed using only on-site fill.
rj.'
PlannIng Department, 51 Winb. Nay, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541.552.2050 www.ashland.or.us m: 1-800-735.2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
DESCRIPTJON: A request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and EnvirRnmental Constraints Review Permit
(PA #2006-01784) for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. The original approval 'was for development in the Wrights
Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the
transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new
single-family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval to accommodate changes in vehicular
access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 05 CD;
TAX LOT: 500
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 23, 2009
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 7, 2009
"
i
i
'1
\
\
\
(
r~~~ATil
~~~----"~
"" ~-
\.
\
"
"'-
-~--""'\.'''-
'"
N
A
\
\
)
\
I3XJ
~ _~ "".lPrqp_."""-_...~r
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 61 Winburn Way,
Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine If a Land Use application Is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of
completeness, a notice Is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the proporty submitting application which allows for a 14 day
comment period. After the comment periOd and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division
Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision Is mailed to the same properties within 6 days of decision. An
appel'll to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staffs decision must be made In writing to the Ashland PlannIng DivIsion within
12 deys from the date ofthe malllng affinal decision. (AMC 18.108.040)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this applicatIon are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection
concerning this application, 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. Fallure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other
Issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specifiCity to allow this Department 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 8t reasonable cost If requested. All materials are available at the Ashlllnd Planning Division, Community
Development & Engineering Services Building, 61 Winburn Wav, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you hIve questions or comments concernIng this request please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 641-488-5305.
O:\eomm-dc~lanning'NollCCS MaiJed>2009I2009.00'26.doc
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT~
1 8.62.040.1 Criteria for Approval I
A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be Issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential Impacts to the property and nearby areas have been consIdered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potenllal hazards that the development may create and Implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards
caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum permitted development permitted by the land Use Ordinance.
(ORD 2608, 1997;ORD 2834,1998; ORD 2951,2008)
TREE REMOVAL
18,6t ,080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal- Staff Permit
O:'LOmm-dev''I'lluming\NOlires MAikdI2009\2009-OO126.dot
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
October 8, 2009
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00726
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 720 Grandview Drive
APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill
DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of a previously approved Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit (PA #2006-01784) for the property locatedat
720 Grandview Drive. The original approval was for development in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an
existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the
installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence. The proposed modification involves alterations to the approval to
accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to
remove two dead poplar trees is also included.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-I-lO; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500
Recommendation:
1) Install Tree Protection fencing along west property line where proposed driveway is
adjacent to the trees on the neighboring property directly west.
2) Measures outlined in narrative of Tree Protection and Preservation Plan shall be
implemented during excavation and construction of the driveway near west property
line at location ofneighbor's shed to where driveway turns back east.
3) That the Ponderosa pine tree within public right-of-way shall be pruned prior to site
work to provide adequate vehicular clearance (13' 6" above drive surface)
4) That a paver system, cold mix asphalt 1 concrete mix, gravel or similar material shall
be used under the dripline of the Ponderosa pine where the driveway encroaches into
dripline area.
5) That the driveway shall be installed at surface grade within the dripline of the
Ponderosa pine.
Departmenl oJ Communlly Development
51 WlI'Ibum Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashJand.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5350
Fax: 541-552.2050
ffi: 800.735.2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
MCDONALD
PROJECT NARRATIVEIFINDINGS
AUGUST 3, 2009
PROJECT NAME: McDonald Residence
TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for a Site Review (Chapter 18.72), Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Penuit (Chapter 18.62) and a Tree Removal Review Penuit (Chapter
18.61) for a proposed residence in the single family zone district (Chapter 18.20).
PROJECT INFORMATION:
--"- OWNER/APPLICANT:
Lynn and Bill McDonald
8621 Oak Branch Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Tel: 661-665-2111
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT I PLANNER:
KellCaim Landscape Architecture
545 A Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-3194
BUILDING DESIGNER:
Ken Snelling
1625 Cady Road
Jacksonville, OR 97520
541-899-2925
SURVEYOR:
Terra Survey, Inc.
274 Fourth Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-6474
ARBORIST:
Upper Limb-It
Tom Meyers
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-482-3667
CIVIL ENGINEER:
Thornton Engineering
1236 Disk Drive
Medford, OR 97504
541-857-0864
PROJECT ADDRESS:
720 Grandview
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
39-lE-5CD Tax Lot 500
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential, (10,000 S.F. Lots)
E ...._,~
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-1-1O
AUG
3 2009
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Area of Property, Lot 500 - .54 acres (23,522 S.F.)
,..,.
,. .
.,,::.;"":t
BACKGROUND:
In 1979, Tax Lot 500 was divided into tluee parcels (PA-79-11O), see Minor Land Partition Map.
Lot 501 remained outside the city limits but within the city's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
This parcel has a county zone designation ofRR-5, which allows for one residential unit per five
acres. Lots 500 and 502 are within the city limits and zoned R-1-1O, which allows 10,000 S.F.
Lots.
The owner of Tax Lot 500 submitted an application for a new residence on February 18, 2004.
A Building Pennit was issued on October 2Q, 2004. In November 2004, Bonnie Brodersen, a .
_._ neighbor,_appealed the issuance.ofthebuilding permit to.the city~s Planning_Commission . - - --
without success. The neighbor then appealed the application tot the State Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the appeal back to the city to address and resolve each of
the assignments of error.
Both the Ashland City Attomey, Mike Franell, and the applicant's attorney, Mark Bm1holomew,
have determined that the 1979 application for a minor Land Partition and Variance for lot depth
was created legally, see attached memo and letter. Except for lot depth, the current application
for a Residential Building Permit, in regard to the general regulations for the zone designation
(Chapter 18.20.040) will be reviewed by the City for current compliance. Further, a Physical
and Environmental Permit (Chapter 18.62) will be reviewed for the area adjacent to the creek in
the southwest comer of the lot as well as a Tree Removal Permit (Chapter 18.61) that addresses
the treatment of the three existing on~site trees. Although the Land Use Ordinance is unclear to
whether a single family home building permit requires a Site Review (Chapter 18.72), the
applicant is also providing Site Review Findings.
The applicant and prior owners of Tax Lot 500 have gained access across the comer of the parcel
to the east, see Site Plan. A fonnal easement agreement does not exist; therefore, the applicant
had requested an easement from his neighbor.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:
This project has been previously approved through the City of Ashland planning process. It is
being resubmitted with a revised access road and driveway. This re-submittal is required
because a neighbor, Bonnie Brodersen, purchased an adjacent lot (TL 411). The prior owner of
the adjacent lot (Tax Lot 411) agreed to grant an access easement over the property, this
easement would have pennitted the applicant to minimize access encroachment into the riparian
area. After Ms. Brodersen purchased tax lot 411, the applicant requested that Ms. Brodersen
provide the easement that had been agreed to by the previous owner, and Ms. Brodersen never
responded. If Ms. Brodersen would have honored the previous owner's promise to grant the
easement, this application would not be necessary. Ms. Brodersen has appealed the application
numerous times, the tluust of her argument is that the proposal would require changes in
vehicular access that would encroach too much into the riparian area. In fact, it is the refusal to
allow access across the comer of Tax Lot 411, coupled with the legal right of the applicants to
build a home on their prope11y, that have pushed the design of the access closer to the riparian
." , '-,.JI
zone. This submittal relocates the driveway access point off of Grandvie,wto avciid'the
AUG 3 2009
neighbors' property corner, while provided evidence that the relocation will have minimal to no
affect on the riparian area and its vegetation.
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Land Use -
Originally the development pattern of the property and neighboring properties was large
undeveloped plots ofland with some agriculture uses. Over the years this land has been
partitioned and subdivided into residential tracts. The present lot sizes in the neighborhood
(within city limits) average about 10,000 S.F.I.25 acres per lot, see Parcel Map. Most ofthese
existing lots have residences, see aerial photograph.
Land Use and zoning immediately adjacent to the subject property is as follows:
North - Vacant (TL 502), zoned R-I-lO
South - Grandview Street, creek drainage and single family residence, zoned R-I-lO
East - Vacant and single family residence, zoned R -1-10
West - Single family residence, zoned RR-5 (County)
The subject property is zoned R-lO which allows single family homes at 1O,000,S.F. per lot. The
allowable density for this property under the Performance Standards Option (Chapter 18.88) is
one dwelling unit (2.4 x .54 = 1.29), or two dwelling units under Chapter 18.20.
Physical Characteristics -
The subject property slopes down (to the west) approximately 12.5%, see Survey, Topographic
Map. There are no structures on the property; however, there is one structure on Lot 501. There
are three trees on the propelty. These trees are two dead poplars (to be removed) and one small
multi tnmked plum tree that will be preserved. Off the property, but adjacent to the project are
13 more trees that are addressed by the tree protection and removal plan submitted with this
document. A branch of Wright's' Creek Channel and riplllian vegetation is located off the
property to the south, this project requires work to be done in this area (see Site Plan and Survey
Topographic Map).
Utility and access to property -
Lot 500 is accessed by Grandview Drive (83.82 feet of frontage) on the south. In this location,
Grandview is an unimproved gravel road. A 10 foot wide public utility easement is located on
the west boundary ofthe existing parcel. City utilities are located within the Grandview ROW,
see Survey Map. An access easement to Lot 501 is located along the south propelty line, see Site
Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This application is an amendment to the original, approved P and E. The primary alteration is
the vehicular access alignment due to changes in land ownership and easements that have
OCCUlTed since its original approval. This proposal places the access drive in closer proximity to
the creek by approximately 13 feet. Previous approved improvements prescribed 324 square feet
of disturbance within the riparian zone, and excluded any disturbance between the top of bank
and the creek center line. The current proposal prescribes 743 square feet of disturbance, 275 of
that total amount is between the top of bank and the center line ofthe creek. The propqsal places,"
road base in this area. The proposal requires a road base at the top of the creek ba,nk. Other:'" - 'L)
than this alteration, the project d~scription findings below are still accurate.
~. ~
AUG
3 2009
: :}
C." \'~ .:,.>~.-:~~;t
Request
The applicant desires to construct a 3,273 S.F. (Two Story) single family home and 648 S.F.
garage. The City Attorney has detennined that the original pm1ition is legal, see Background
section above; therefore, the applicant is requesting review of the Physical/Environmental
Constraints Permit (Chapter 18.62) and the Tree Preservation, Protection and Removal Permit
(Chapter 18.61). Information regarding this review is discussed in the Findings of this document
and shown on the Site, Survey and Civil Plans. In addition, the applicant will show compliance
with the Zoning Chapter 18.20, the Solar Standards (Chapter 18.70) and Site Review (Chapter
18.72) for the proposed home. The lot has direct frontage on Grandview Drive.
Street Improvements/Access-
The subject propel1y is accessed from Grandview Drive. This street has an existing a 47
serpentine Right of Way see Site Plan and SUlveyor's Map. All new paving will be less than
15% grade and comply, in general, with the Flag Lot Partition Standards of Chapter 18.76.060
and the City's Fire Code requirements. The length and thickness of each driveway will vary.
There is sufficient area on TL's 500 and 50 I to allow easy turning without having to back out on
a city street, see Civil Site Plan.
FINDINGS:
COMPLIANCE with CHPATER 18.20
Residential District
The permitted use for the R-I-I0 Zone District is a single family residence at 10,000 S.F. per
dwelling unit. The lot size is .54 acres which would allow one dwelling unit (2.4 X .54 = 1.29)
under the Perfonnance Standards Option (Chapter 18.88) or two dwelling units under the
minimum lot size (23,522 S.F. divided by 10,000 = 2) allowed by Chapter 18.20.040. The
applicant is proposing one single family residence.
The minimum lot width for the R-I-1O Zone Disttict is 75 feet. The existing lot is 84.35 feet, see
Site Plan. The maximum lot depth is 150 feet. The existing lot is 275 feet; however, a variance
was approved along with the minor land partition which allowed the lot depth to exceed the 150
foot length.
"
As shown on the applicant's Site Plan (sheet 1), the front and rear setbacks (15 foot and 10 foot
per story, respectively) meet or exceed the requirements of this residential zone. The side yard
setback is six feet. The Site Plan shows a trellis on the north side yard boundary within the six
food setback. This trellis will be removed from the drawings. The side yard setback on the
south boundary exceeds the six foot setback. The maximum building height allowed is 35 feet or
two and one-half stories in height, whichever is less. The applicant's west and south Exterior
Elevations did not show the building height; however, when these elevations are measured, the
height is approximately 28 feet which is far less than the maximum requirement of 35 feet. The
height is measured from finish grade to the midpoint of a sloping roof. Further, the proposda
hoine is two stories and therefore less than the 2 12 story maximum requireni.ent.
AUG
3 2009
c.
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 15
Fire Safety
It is the applicant's belief that the access driveway is not required to meet the standards of a Flag
Partition (Chapter 18.76.060) because the pmiition and variance was approved in 1979, see City
Attorney Letter; however, the applicant will comply with these standards and certain
requirements of the City of Ashland's Fire Department and Fire Code (Chapter 15). These
requirements are:
1) A fire fuel break
- .2) -Driveways sufficient.foremergency vehicle access, and. ., - - .'
3) Amount of water and pressure of other fire suppression system to control fires.
Fuel Bl'Cak
As mentioned in the Site Description, the site contains three trees, two dead poplars and a plum.
The two poplar trees will be removed, see Tree Removal Permit and recommended plant list.
These trees will be replaced with city recommended ornamental and native trees and shmbs in
the Grandview ROW. The existing grasses and ground cover will be either replaced by suitable
plantings or mowed to reduce flame lengths to less than one foot high. The proposed roof for the
new home is a metal standing seam which is approved for high fire areas.
Driveways
The Civil Site Plan includes notes and dimensions that specify that the driveway will have a 15
foot wide clear area, except for ground cover, with a 12 foot wide all weather surface (capable of
supporting a 44,000 pound vehicle). Further, where the driveway enters the property and shares
the driveway to TL 500, the combined driveways (all less than a 15% grade) will have a 20 foot
wide 'clear area' and a 15 foot wide all weather surface. Two address signs will be located at the
entrance to the lot.
The 12 foot wide driveway connects to a fire turn-around which is approximately 110 feet from
the entrance of the property. The fire tum~around is located in front of the retaining wall, see
Civil Site Plan. The turn-around will have a surface capable of supporting 44,000 pounds. The
turn-around is within 150 feet of the farthest comer ofthe house/garage, see Civil Site Plan. The
applicant will also provide a residential automatic fire sprinkler system instead of providing a
"fire work area" and because the height of the house may exceed 24 feet in some locations.
Also, no gate is proposed, therefore, a "knox box" will not be necessary.
Access to a Fire Hydrant
The nearest fire hydrant is located at the north west comer of Grandview and Wrights Creek
Streets. It is approximately 500 feet from this intersection to the beginning of the 12 foot, on-site
driveway, see Civil Drawings. This distance is less than the 600 foot maximum allowed by the
Fire Department. ., .. ..:.'::":lj)
AUG
3 2009
,-.
._ . ..--_r<.....,~
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 18.70
Solar Access -
As shown on the applicant's West Exterior Elevation (sheet 5) and calculations, the proposed
house is in compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance.
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 18.62
Physical and Environmental Constraints
There are two sections in this Chapter that apply to the proposed project. These sections are
Development-S tandards.fm: Ripat'ian.Presetvation Lands- (Chapter-18. 62..015) and-Development.-
Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands (Chapter 18.62.070). A Physical and Environmental
Constraints Pennit can be issued when the following criteria have been addressed by the
applicant:
..- -.;
1) That the development will not cause damage or haZaJ'd to persons O1'prOpeJ'ty upon
or adjacent to the area of development.
2) That the applicant has considered the potential hazm'ds that the development may
create and implemented reasonable measure to mitigate the potential hazards caused
by the development.
3) That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to J'evel'se the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than
J'eversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the
existing development of the sUl'J'ounding area, and the maximum peJ'mitted by the
Land Use Ordinance.
4) That the development is in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter and all
other applicable City Ordinances and Codes.
The Surveyor's Map shows the location of the top of Creek Bank (TOCB). The TOCB is located
on a small portion of the subject property, in the south west corner. The TOCB is also located
along the ROW of Grandview Drive, The nonnal City setback requirement from the TOCB is
20 feet. This proposal will put the road closer to the top of bank than the standard 20 foot
setback.. The standard 20 foot wide setback would be impossible due to current location of the
existing public roadway and access easement to Tax Lot 501, see Surveyor's Map. The Civil
Engineer's drawing shows the location ofthe proposed driveway (to both TL 500 and 501).
There is an existing access easement agreement between TL 500 and 501; much of the proposed
driveway is in the 20 foot setback from the top of the creek bank. It is the intent of the Civil
Engineer, to minimize adverse impacts of the Creek Channel); therefore, the following measures
are shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan:
1) Drainage will be directed underground along the west boundary of the subject pr?''pertx;~ncl)
empty into the creek channel. Large rocks (energy dissipater) will be located at the end of the
drainage pipe to slow the water and prevent erosion, see Drainage and Gradi~lg Plan.
AUG 3 2009
., ~.-"_.~
2) As shown on the grading and Drainage Plan) the 12 foot wide paved portion of the driveway
is located as far away from the TOCB as possible, while also crossing the TOCB to gain access
from the property to Grandview. Where possible, this area will be planted in riparian ground
cover and shrubs which will assist in screening possible pollutants from entering the creek.
3) Further, the applicant will utilize permeable asphalt for the driveway surface to both control
drainage as well as filter possible pollutants through the driveway base (sand and gravel).
Chapter 18.62.050 (A) classify flood plain lands as all areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance)
of-any cI:eek-designated for riparian preservation.and depicted.on such maps-adopted by the.city--
council. As mentioned above) the TOCB was located by the Smveyor along the ROW of
Grandview Drive and within the subject property. Portions of both the existing gravel paved
Grandview Drive and proposed asphalt paved private driveway are within the 20 foot setback.
To minimize adverse impacts caused by fill material, the applicant will confonn to the standards
listed in Section 18.62.070 (A) as well as the development standards for riparian preselvation
lands) see Civil Drawings.
It is the applicant's betiefthat the above measures will not cause either damage or hazard to
persons or propelty and mitigate the potential hazards and possible adverse impacts to the creek
environment. As stated above, in compliance with the residential district findings and the
Background section ofthis narrative, the proposed single farnily residence is in compliance with
the requirements of this chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes. In addition,
the following grading/drainage and erosion control measures are recommended: Drainage and
Erosion Control- Where new vegetation is incorporated as part of the erosion control strategy,
a temporary and/or pennanent irrigation system will be provided to guarantee the establishment
of vegetation.
General Erosion and Sediment Control
Gmding of the dJ'iveway and the revegetation will take place prim' to fall rains ami will comply with the
J'equirements of the ordinance listed below:
a. Only grade where necessm'y
b. Preserve and protect existing vegetation wheJ'everpossible
c. InstalVapply bank stabilization measure well ill advance fOJ' fall mins.
All slopes created as a result of grading to be planted with ground coveJ'S and grasses.
a. Fill slopes not to exceed 3:1
b. Cut slopes that exceed 2:1 to be hydro seeded aud intel'planted with
ground covel'
Where it is necessary to create slopes a/ollg road cOllstruction exceeding 2 tol, storm flows above the
slope will be directed away from the top of the slope to a point where more gmdual slopes allow fot'
contl'olled travel'sing into drainage systems. L.
...,: ._ ~.: 1,~}
AUG 3 2009
a. Cut slopes exceeding 1.5 to 1, use pinned mats aJ1(1 hydro seeding as stabifizatiou
measure.
b. Stabilize existiug aud proposed drainage ways
Existing drainage ways must be protected during constlUction. Silt fences can be used to keep
sediments out ofthe system along with hay bales. A combination of a "V" ditch and
underground drainage pipes will convey the runoff down the proposed private drive. A Detail
Drainage Plan is provided by the Civil Engineer. Further, energy dissipaters in the fonn ofIarge
rocks will be placed at the discharge point of the drainage channels/pipes prior to the water
entering Wrights Creek.
COMPLIANCE with (CHAPTER 18.61.080)
Tree Removal Permit
An applicant for a Tree Removal Pennit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree l'emoval permitfor a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that (l tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
Not Applicable
B. Tree that is Not a Hazm"d: The City shall issue (I tree removal permitfor a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstmtes all of the following:
1. The tree is proposedfOJ" removal in order to peJ'lnit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. {e.g. other
applicable Site Design and Use Standm"d!oJ~. The Staff Advisor may require the building
footprint of the development to be stclked to allow for accurate ve1'ification of the permit
application; and
2. Removal of the tl'ee will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability,j1ow of smface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not /ulve a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and !oJpecies diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shull grant an exception to these critel'ia when ultematives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alte1'1lative exists to allow the
propeJ'ty to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require
that the residential density be J'educed below the permitted density allowed by the
zone. In making this determination, the City may consider altemative site plans or
placement of structm'es OJ' alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact
on trees, so long as the alte1'Jlatives continue to comply with othel' provf.~i(}n~ '!fitt'Y
Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
AUG
3 2009
;......
. '. -_".~_-c~-~~
4. The City shullJ'equil'e the upplicant to mitigate for the J'emoval of each tJ'ee
gmnted approval pUl'suant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation J'equil'ements shall be
a condition of uppl'oval of the permit.
The Site Plan and Survey Map show the location of the two dead poplar trees # 4 and #5 (to be
removed) and plum tree #6 which will be protected. These are the only trees on-site. There are,
however, trees that would potentially be impacted that are adjacent to the site, on neighboring
property or within the city right of way. These trees would be potentially impacted when the
required width and alignment improvements are made to the driveway while providing access to
Grandview. We have reviewed our proposed street alignment with the project arborist to
. . determine the best way. to incorporate. the new driveway with the existing trees. .Ihe arborisCs
comments and recommendations are as follows:
Tree Protection Plan for 720 Grandview with specific recommendations for tree # 1 (A
Ponderosa Pine in the riparian zone)
The 28 inch diameter Ponderosa pine tree designated as tree number I will require special attention
because ofthe proximity ofthe access road to the tree's hunk. There is already a dirt road within the
tree protection zone of tree # I. It will be necessary to adjust the protective fencing around the tree to
the edge of the existing road rather than the 28 foot radius described by the h'ee protection zone. A
celtified arborist should be on the construction site when the road paving begins to insure that all
precautions are taken to insure the trees survival. The paving ofthe new road should be done with a
minimum of grading in order to keep root damage to a minimum. It would be preferable to raise the
grade of the road surface rather than cutting and filling to achieve the desired road surface. All
equipment must be kept away from the hunk ofthe h'ee in order to insure that there is no structural
damage to the tree trunk. If these precautions are taken, the ponderosa should survive the construction
process without damage to its health.
We have designed the new road alignment to comply with these recommendations.
TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
#4
#5
9" DBH
6" DBH
5' Dia.
4' Dia,
Populus, Cottonwood
Populus, Cottonwood
The two trees listed above are considered by the City of Ashland to be hazard trees and
prohibited from use as a street tree. Roots of this type of tree may be damaged by construction,
which causes entry for bacteria and disease. Further, these trees can drop limbs periodically
through out their life span. Most irnpOltantly, however, these two trees are dead, and we are
requesting to remove them.
Protection of Existing and Proposed Trees
A. Landscape adjacent to the project area shall be protected from damage. No storage of
equipment or materials shall occur within drip lines of trees to be preserved which ar~those
identified on this plan. All damage caused by constmction to existing trees shall be :: .'
Compensated for, before the project will be considered completed.
."
':J
I\UG 3 2009
B. Trees that are shown on the plans to remain shall be protected with fencing as shown on
plans. Fencing shall be 6' tall temporary orange fencing panels installed with metal connections
so that all panels area integrated, these fences shall be installed so that it does not allow passage
of pedestrians and/or vehicles through it.
C. Exceptions to the tree protection specifications may only be granted in extraordinary
circumstances with written approval from owner's representative.
D. Pieces of work that will require disturbance of tree protection fences include the following:
1) When tree roots over 2" are cut due to required site work, cut cleanly at a 90~degree angle to
the root.
2) Place damp soil around all cut roots to a depth equaling the exiting finish grade within 4 hours
u -of cuts being made. -- ~." - . ~ . ---. - - -..- .. -
F. Do not raise the soil level within the drip lines of existing trees to achieve possible drainage,
except to match grades with sidewalks and curbs, and in those area, feather the added topsoil
back to existing grade at an approximately 3: 1 slope.
G. Inspection schedule:
1) Fencing locations and installation technique shall be approved by owner's representative
before demolition or rough grading begins.
2) Routine inspections of fencing and site conditions will occur on a weekly basis, work shall
cease if fencing is damaged or moved without written prior approval for specific palis of work.
3) At completion of project to determine ultimate condition of trees.
4) To detennine further measure to ensure tree survival or replacement at end of project.
5) Ifneeded, an Arborist, will be retained by the applicant to insure compliance with the above
measures. The Arborist can also be available to recommend additional protection measures,
such as root pruning and fertilization, during the constmction ofthe driveway and homes.
The applicant is also recommending the following plant list to be considered in ~he replanting of
the site:
Fire Resistant and Retardant Plant List -
The plant list below consists of the plants used in the proposed planting plan.
Trees
Acer macrophlyllum
Betula nigra 'Duraheat'
Shrubs and Ground Cover
Acer circinatum
Arctostaphylos densiflora 'Howard McMinn'
Arctostaphylos 'Emerald Carpet'
Mahonia aquifolium
Mahonia repens
PelUlisetum a. 'Hameln'
f; ..
, ' . ~ .,!
.'. ..~Y
AUG
3 2009
......,.
, .
;. :(~{~~~
COMPLIANCE with (CHAPTER 18.72)
Site Review
The Planning Staff/Planning Commission can approve a Site Review when the following criteria
have been addressed:
A. All applicable City OJ'dinances have been met 01' will be met by the proposed development.
The above Narrative and Findings address the applicable city ordinances regarding the proposed
-- - .house. The..applicant,-however,-believesthe Site Design-and Use Standards were-n0tintended
for a single family home on a single lot but were for a multi-family perfonnancestandard,
employment, commercial and industrial type developments. In fact, page 13 to 16 of the Site
Design and Use Standards only address design guidelines for multi-family residential
development and there are no single family guildelines. However, Chapter 18.72.040 (B) does
mention that a Type 1 procedure approval is necessary for all new structures or additions greater
than 2,500 S.F. except for developments included in section 18.72.040 (A); therefore, the
applicant will provide the findings. Also see above findings regarding compliance with all other
applicable city ordinances and codes.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met 01' will be met.
See Project Description in nan"ative and the information below.
The applicant is providing a written Nan-alive and Findings as well as a Site Plan, Civil
Engineering Plans, Topographic Survey, Aerial Photograph, Parcel Map, photographs of the site
and Building Elevations drawings. This information is provided in the Application Package and
addresses the submittal requirements of Chapter 18.72.060.
The Landscape Standards of Chapter 18.72.110 requires a minimum of 45% of the total
developed lot to be landscaped. The applicant is providing a minimum of 55%.
The applicant will locate a trash/recycle area within the garage and/or parking areas. This area will be
screened from view. Covered bicycle parking areas are provided in the garage. All site and
building lighting will be directed away from adjacent properties. Also, see the approval
standards below.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Councilfor
the implementation of this Chapter.
b. Multi-Family Development.
As mentioned above, the approval standards are for multi-family residential development;
however, the applicant will respond to these standards where applicable. " .
AUG
3 2009
Approval Standards: Multi-family residential development shall conform to the following
design standards
II-B-l) Orientation
Il-B-l a) Residential buildings shall have their prim my orientation toward the street when they
are within 20 to 30 feet of the street.
lI-B-lb) Buildings shall be set backJrom the stree~ according to ordinance requirements, which
is usually 20 feet.
lI-B-lc) Buildings shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas shall not be
located between buildings and the street.
The proposed house is oriented toward Grandview Drive. The proposed setback is 175 feet
which is greater than the 15 foot minimum (or 20 feet for garages). The guest parking area (one
space required) is located behind the house at the end of the driveway, see Site and Civil Plans.
II-Bw2) Stl'eetscape
Il-B-2a) One street tree for each 30 feet of frontage, chosen fi'om the street tree list, shall be
placed on that portion of development paralleling the street. Where the size of the project
dictates an interior circulation street pattern, a similar streetscape with street trees is required.
II-B-2b) Front yard landscaping shall be similar to thosefollnd in residential neighborhoods,
with appropriate changes to decrease water lIse.
There is approximately 84 feet of frontage on Grandview Drive. The applicant will provide three
trees (one per 30 feet) along this frontage. These trees will be native liparian types since this
location is adjacent to the drainage channel. See Planting Plan.
II-B-3) Landscaping
Il-B-3a) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within one year of
installation and 90% landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years.
1I-B-3b) Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs
andjloweringplant species well adapted to the local climate.
1I-B-3c) As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably feasible.
Il-B-3d) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at least 10 fiet in
width.
'-. :
;-
II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall be
adequately screened and bufferedfrom adjacent uses.
AUG 3 2009
r".
.,":
. .,,-:~.~
II-B-3j) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. Refer to parking lot
landscaping and screening standards for more detail.
Upon approval of the land use action, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant
will submit a Landscape Plan al)d Irrigation Plan for the home site. Landscape and Inigation
submitted with this proposal are for the land use action only, revegetating the roadway and
providing the required street trees.. The Landscape/Irrigation Plan will confonn to the above
findings. The above Tree Removal/Protection Plan addresses the existing trees. Also, the
suggested plant list, above, can be used. The applicant intends to utilize as many native plants as
possible and locate these plants in appropriate locations to ~ncourage healthy plant development,
to. utilize.. natural climate control~and. t.o enhance suitable plantcommunities~ ., - ., .- -- . n' - - .
II-B-4) Open Space
II-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open spacefor
recreation for llse by the tenants of the development.
1I-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other ground covers which do not provide a
suitable sll1facefor human use may not be counted toward this requirement.
II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play areas for
children are requiredforprojects ofgreater than 20 units that are designed to includefamities.
The applicant is providing most of the site for private recreation open space. The private
recreation/open space areas include the front porches, patios, and second story decks. The
common open space requirement for tenants is not applicable.
II-B-5) Natural climate control
II-B-5a) Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on the south
sides of buildings which are occupied and have glazing for summer shade and winter warmth.
See Finding II-B-3, above
II-B-6) Building materials:
II-B-6a) Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area.
VelY bright primm)' or neo-type paint colors which attract attention to the building or use are
unacceptable.
The materials used for the proposed home are shown on the Exterior Elevations. These materials are
indicative of a craftsman style. The colors selected by the applicant (body, trim and windows) will be
earth tones. Sample materials aud colors will be presented to the city planning staff for review and
approval prior to receiving a Building Pennit.
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
IIUG 3 2009
_ ", c.~.
APPROVAL STANDARD: All developmentfronting on public orp,.;vate streets shall be
required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen fJ'011I the
recommended list of street trees found in this section.
II-E-)
Location for StJ'eet Trees
Street frees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated
planting strip in the right-o.fway, or the sidewalk is greater shall include irrigation, root
barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of commun Uy
Development.
II-E-2)
Spacing, Placement, aud Pruning of Street TJ'ees
1) All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as
safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as
follows:
a) Street trees shall be placed the rate of one tree for eveJ)l30 feet of street frontage.
Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variation to the spacing permitted for specific site
limitations, sllch as driveway approaches.
b) Trees shall be planted close than 25 feet Fom the curb line of intersections of streets
or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet fi'om private driveways (measured at the back
edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Exceptfor
public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to
any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 % feet Fom the face of the curb except at
intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that wil/not
intelfere with those lines.
f) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard slllface paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however,
larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root
system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard slllface
may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard swfaces such as grates, bricks on
sand, or paver blocks.
:.J
AUG 3 2009
", "'~,
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above
sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway sUlfaces.
h) Existing trees may be llsed as street trees if there will be no damage from the
development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and
elevation may be utilized to save existing trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-3 )
Replacement of Street Trees
1) Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replace by the developer with
. those from the approved street tree list. "Tile replaGement-treesshall.be-ofsize and speoies - --
similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-4)
Recommended Street Trees
1) Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
The above approval standards (II-B-l to II-B-6) also address these standards.
, D. The adequate capacity of City facilities for wate,', sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electl'icity, urban storm dl'ainage, adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
The Civil Engineering Drawings show the existing and proposed utility lines that connect the
proposed home to the city services in the ROW of Grandview Drive. This ROW is 47 foot wide.
Paved access on Grandview Drive is neither necessary nor desirable because: 1. the existing
gravel road has a 10% or less slope and therefore for public works standards does not need to be
surfaced with asphalt, 2. a gravel surface will minimize mnoffinto the creek environment, 3. the
gravel road is capable of suppOliing emergency vehicles (44,000 pounds) and 4. paving of the
road would necessitate land acquisition of neighboring properties along Grandview Drive to
accommodate the serpentine ROW, see Survey Map. Also see Physical Constraints Findings
above.
The proposed home would only generate ten more vehicle trips per day which is insignificant
even when the five possible and existing homes using Gnmdview are added (60 vehicle trips per
day total)
AlJC 3 2009
~:! .: :n~_"'~D
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-482-3667
JUN 5 2009
......-'__.H.. .1- .:...,-~-.~Cl:~'
Keny KenCaim
545 A Street
Ashland, OR 97520
1/30/09
Tree Protection Plan for 720 Grandview
The Tree Protection Plan for 720 Grandview is designed to address the needs of all existing trees
within the project. The trees should be identified by number on the plan as well as by numbered tag
attached to the tree in the field. The specified tree protection zones (as stipulated in the enclosed tree
inventory) will be drawn on the plans as well as delineated on the site by approved fencing. Trees with
protection zones that extend within the foundation lines of the building, as well as trees that are within
the area of the foundation will need to be removed. All other trees within the building project boarders
will need protection. The enclosed specifications detail exactly how the trees are to be protected. The
building contractor and subcontractors will meet with a certified arborist before and during construction
to insure that the correct measures are in place. A certified arborlst must supelVise any work done
within the specified tree protection zone. A certified arborist will conduct an inspection of the trees
during and after construction. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan please call
me at 482-3667.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
DBA Upper Limb-it
I.
~ . . : . .
.. ,"
. J."
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-482-3667
,fUN
S 2009
. "~/' t",?
Kerry KenCairn
545 A Slreet
Ashland, OR 97520
1/30/09
Tree Protection Plan for 720 Grandview specific recommendations for tree # 1
The 28 inch diameter Ponderosa pine tree designated as tree number 1 will require special
attention because of the proximity of the access road to the trees trunk. There is already a dirt road
within the tree protection zone of tree # 1. It will be necessary to adjust the protective fencing around
the tree to the edge of the existing road rather than the 28 foot radius described by the tree protection
zone. A certified arborist should be on the construction site when the road paving begins to insure that
all precautions are taken to insure the trees survival. The paving of the new road should be done with a
minimum of grading in order to keep root damage to a minimum. It would be preferable to raise the
grade of the road surface rather than cutting and filling to achieve the desired road surface. All
equipment must be kept away from the trunk of the tree in order to insure that there is no structural
damage to the tree trunk. If these precautions are taken. the ponderosa should survive the
construction process with out damage to its health.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
DBA Upper Limb-it
I.
I - . ~ . .
.... T~ORNTON
. _ENGINEERING INC.
July 20, 2009
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of AsWand, Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street
AsWand OR 97520P.O. Box 828
Subject:
720 Grandview - McDonald P&E Application - Flood Analysis
Dear Derek:
This letter presents my analysis and findings with regards to thesubject application and
the City~s land use ordinances regulating flood damage prevention. The proposed
improvements comply with both sections 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations),
- and 18.62.070 (Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands). The proposed
improvements are more than 20 feet beyond the flood plain boundary and are not located
within a flood hazard area or within a floodway (See Sheet C3, 1 OO-year Flood Boundary
enclosed).
In addition, the improvements have been designed to not impede floodwaters regardless
of the frequency ofthe event required to inundate project site.
Please contact me if you have any questions or any further needs~
By.pJA~~
Michael P. Thornton, President
---
Sincerely,
Thornton Engineering, Inc.
',1 ."
,.
S/! ~,
. ~ .
~~j >'''''r,''":';'/ ~'
.',
. " I \;1 f' .,
JAN 29 2010
~' "f " nr f\St"11 '1 ~-, d
..J ~ ~ \ - , . Col I ,. .
· "clrl' D-- ,'~F'_ LJ' \
"hJ U . vldC~,~' ~. L
Office (541) 899-1489 Fax (541) 899-3419 P.O. Box 476,260 N. 3rd Street, JacksonYlIIe, OR 97530
CITY OF
ASHLAND
August 20, 2008
William J. and Lynn J. McDonald
8621 Oak Branch Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93311
RE: Ministerial Action #2008-0]250
Notice of Ministerial Decision
On August 20,2008, the Ashland Planning Depattment granted ministerial approval of YOUI' request for an
extension of the Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit approved under Planning Action
#2006-01784 for the propelty located at 720 Grandview Drive -- Assessor's Map #39 IE 05CD Tax Lot
#500. This approval is based upon the fact that delays related to the appeal of the approval prevented
completion of the development within the original time limitation.
This extension is valid for a period of I8-months from the date of the original approval's expiration
(August 7, 2008). The conditions of the original approval remain in effect, and shall be met prior to
project completion. As required under Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.112.030.3, the building
permit application or any modifications to the land use approval will be subject to review under the
revisions to our Land Use Ordinance adopted as Ordinance #2951.
If YOll have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development
Dep81tment between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Hornecker, Cowling, Hassen & HeyseH, LLP
Attn: Mark S. Battholomew FILE #26116
717 Murphy Rd.
Medford, OR 97504
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Slresl
Ashland. OregOll 97520
WVNi.ashlalld.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fa~; 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
rj.'
07/30/2008 09:35 5417732~~o HCHH
I I
HORNECK~R, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSt;t.L, L.L. P.
PAGE 01/04
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. HQTnacl!;at
Robert L, Cowling
John ft, HlI-5sen
R. Ray He~1!1I
H. Scott P!OU&9
P. David 'ngall!.
Adalll T. Stamper'"
Joseph E. Kellannan
James A. W~II&n
Benjamin M. Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
Ryan J. Vanderhoof
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779-8900
Fax: (541) 773-2.635
http:www.roQuelaw.eom
'Stehml~ L Burke
Rlchard L. Billin
Mark S. Bartholl;II'T1BW
Eric B. Mitton
*"Erik C. Larsen, LLM.
Stephen L. Brown
B. Kent Blackhul'$t 1922.2007
Ervin B. Hogan 1927-2000
"Also admitted in California
**A1so admitted in Id;1I10
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE:
TO:
FAX NO:
FROM:
RE:
FILE #:
July 30, 2008
Adam Hanks
541 r488~6006
Mark So Bartholomew
William and laynn McDonald
PA 2006-01 784
PAGES:
4 (Includes cover sheet. If you do not receive all pages, please
contact the above as soon as possible.)
MEMO:
Please see attached. Original With check to be mailed today.
[xl An origInal is being mailed,
[ ] An original Is being delivered.
[ ] An original is available upon request.
[ ] Facsimile transmlttal only.
If you do not receive all otthe described material, please telephone 779-aSOO immediately.
CONFIDENTIALnY NOTICE
This telecopier transmission (and/or documenl5 aocomp$(lylng it) may contain confidential information oolonglng to the
sender which Is protected by the attorney-client privilege_ The Information i$ intended only for the USE! of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notifil;ld mat any disclosurE!. copying, t1islnbOtion
or the taking of any sclion in relle.nce on the content9. of thIs information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission In error, please immediately notify I,IS by telephone to arrange for return of the documonts.
fA- - ~()D~" OJ;;\!V
07/30/2008 09:35
5417732F-':!1j
I
HCHH
PAGE 02/04
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & BEYSELL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. HOTdt(ll.~r
goberl 1.. Cowling
John ll. Hauen
R. RAY Hey.ell
H. Sooct Plol,Isl
... David IlIg&l1s
AdAm T. S.ta.ltlper*
Joseph E. Kellerman
J.llJilt$ A. WallAD
Benjamin M.lllQoro
Charles J.,:. >>(l1en
Ryan J. Vand~(hOOf
717 Murphy Ro~d .
l\JetlfQrd., OR 97504
(54') 779-3~OO
Fax: (541)773-2635
bttp:www.roguelaw.c(lm
"'Slefallie L. 8\,1rke
RichArd L. Dillin
MArk.S.8:artholomew
Eric B. Mitron
..Erlk C. Lanen, LL.M.
Stcphen L.lIrown
B. Kent Blackburst 1922.2007
trvin B. Hogan 19l7-2000
"Also. Admitted in C.Ufornlll
....Alsoadmilttd in .dallo
July 30, 2008
Adam Hanks I
City of Ashland
20 E. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: William and Lynn McDonald
Our File No. 26116
Dear Mr. Hanks:
We are requesting an extension of 12 months on the above-captioned matter, by way
of a staff permit procedure, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code 18.108.030(A)(5). Events
beyond the control of the applicants make this extension necessary. The application was
approved on August 7,2007. Bonnie Brodersen a.ppealed the approval--Decem~er 26, 2007.
Therefore, nothing could be done in furtherance of the approval while it was on appeal,
leaving the. applicants with substantially five months less time than most applicants to act on
the approval. We are unaware of any changes to the requirements since approval, other than
the fact that this application (extension) is now nUnisterial. Please accept this letter as
fIndings of compliance with the extension requirements.
We are mailing a hard coPy ofthis today~ along with the required payment. However,
in the interest of time, we are faxing it as well.
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T.lIornecker
Robert L. Cowling
John R. Hassen
R. Ray Ileysell
H. Seolt Plousc
P. David Ingalls
Adam T. Stamper*
Joseph E. Kellerman
James A. Wallan
Benjamin M. Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
Ryan J. Vanderhoof
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779.8900
Fax: (541)779-2982
hltp:www.roguelaw.com
*Stefanie L. Burke
Riehard L. BUlin
Mark S. Bartholomew
Eric B. Milton
**Erik C. Larsen, LL.M.
Stephen L. Brown
June 27,2008
B. Kent Blackhurst - 1922.2007
Ervin B. Hogan 1927.2000
*Also admilted in California
**Also admilted in Idaho
Adam Hanks
City of Ashland
20 E. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: William and Lynn McDonald
Our File No. 26116
Dear Mr. Hanks:
We are requesting an extension of 12 months on the above-captioned maUer, by way
of a staff permit procedure, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code 18.108.030(A)(5). Events
beyond the control of the applicants make this extension necessary. The application was
approved on August 7,2007. Bonnie Brodersen appealed the approval--December 26,2007.
Therefore, nothing could be done in furtherance of the approval while it was on appeal,
leaving the applicants with substantially five months less time than most applicants to act on
the approval. We are unaware of any changes to the requirements since approval.
It doe$ not :lppear that there is a fee ::I~sociated with this extension. However, in the
event there is such a fee, please contact me immediately, and we will remit payment.
:gmr
cc: Richard AppicclIo
Bill MolnflT
L~ !le~(
t'/iU/Ol
7//J/Of.
~
J".?....~
~,P I
P1c.> IJ..::
l\
",
'/://c-<A..- '?
.-:'::
-----------
---.
/
.....
J
/
~
~
i
!
h
! "
~~
i is
:!I,,,,~
t; ~e~
~ ~~
a:L~
~ $
~ ~ ~~
g ~ g ~
, ~~i ~Sb:~
I .~ :i~ ~~.~~ ~~
>~';;'~ l'P ~ ~~~~g n
~~~~ ~n ~,,1il!n~:;i ~ ~~
o ~~~L~I~~. ~5i~~~~ ~ ~,~
~15~i:l~"'" ~~'~".t,,~ II
3 k~,,:dn !~&~~~~~d~ ~ ~~
'"
wI III 1.1 >, ~
- · ill jo 58~l~ g ~G}
-----------
>-
w
> 0
cc ~~
"'1 >~
.,...J ~J)
(f] Oz
u ~3
_ _C,l
I >t
00
Q, z: .
....,., ",,0-
~ 'z
,v cc'
I-J,., -~-<
V t
U 0;:
O NU1
1'-<
0.,
o
c...
l
-
(!)
(!)
1'\ J.l Gl
J J ~
<(z_
z ~ z
o ..- cc
Cl -< 0
l>":' l:.
~ ~ U J
5 ,Z <\
l.. j <( iJ
rr
~ ~ ci
- .J
c.j -< J.J
ZOi:'
Z -
r ~ ~
j ~ W
:::::
-<
rD
f-
a
...J (\J
X. :;
;:
~
.
c
~
H ~,~ ~
I t I ~ ~
~ n" ~ ~
~ ~ :s : i; ;
U~~~ ~
:I: ~ ~ ",... Q,
~ in! ~ tll
i'l.
~
~
~
~
1
in ~N:J/lf1S'r'J""l .f Alnilll -'J19IJtI
~--,,- -_.~~
-",-,-, ---.--- ------........-----.-----.--.....-
;_ '..--..-2IS2- 2\5Q V
I me ~----;; '-
f,~,-___,,,, \ _-' rr{2\'~'
. '- '\ -- ~/
~')':2'_''! ~ i ~ ~ I:: /o.,v to /J
~______ __--;..~~--- __ ."'-______:.v:...-J-", . /
_____._._..-- " ~ 8 8 ! Il: I
-~, i! if' ~ ~I ~ //: I""" i/~ "-J
P"'(~ ~A f/ I?) 1'1
c_" . -..--.-+___. / .' "
""-, I'"" ..
'-.
''-,
".....,,, ___~..---7'-.....,.,. / / '
.in,,,) ""'" 01"''''' lC'" ,0' --____ _____ .--; / I /~"./'.~ '.
______ !... / / "r<,!:
___--------'''--/- ,--' '" / I
~ ~ ~
, , ~
~
~
*
U
Z12
-P
.~ ~
>--&:~~
r,,:::> ,-,,'"
... CI) 0:
......C:lf--l:
,...- <: II) 0
er::.5~8
,..'"
~-JS:O
--<:..." q'
(InS e l:
<( ~;:: ~
a::~C\Jt;
0:; 6 -<:
:.rJ&:
f-.
~
~
~
~
,~,.
;.~
(;~ ~
~.
~
'_'r'
tAlJI~b(
~r~ ~ .
~d!o' ~ ~
~~~~ " ~
',~~~ ~ ...
"',<<I.. ~
~...~ ~ ~
..~~~
~)~ ~ ~
~";i:l ~ ~
:;o~i; ~
!~~~~ ~ *
!!'lrB~1i e~ ~
gl'~:t~ ~~
il;)<"'~ &0 ~,
~~~& e:; -!o'
h>~ ~o ~~
~~!g: !~ I~
~~~~a ~~ ..I
s,,$.... " !o
~~~~~ n ~~
-
'"
~
.... 01
~ ..
~ ~
~
~ I
ii ,
0
~
,
:.;
:>
'"
0
'"
i ~
~
'0
. .~
.;,,~
'^
"
:.:
ii
.
'"
'" III
?
1'/ .'
-
r-....\ :;, I.....
.-,' ^/ ~.
,', z
-
;:,. -.:.
',,! ,...
'-
..........:
;:,.
" .~
/"', .... -
- /. "
./ ~ -
, ~~, "I
v
(V' - /
.
.""
~l
~~
<
'n
<
:-
.:
,
}
"
;,
.
y; I~
~;;.
~; ;
~~I t..,.
~
&J
g f~
lu ? '$ ~
~ @ ~
i:S r.s h ~ 2
i~'~~~%
Il. \,J I.oi. w'..'
...."., ..-,;
- ;" ~
-:
Z
(I
,... / "/
;:: <
.~
..:... .J...,
/. -oJ. ......I
(,.. /
.-::
It
- ^
.,.. ,!. .....;
", ('
I.
! - t
r-.
v'
-:
./
<
""
V
~
~
~
~
I,
.~
".~~
~ ~ I,~i
[~
~ ~
,) I~~
~": ~
~ ~
~ ~
lr
~ ~.; ~~
"
8 ~
~,
~
j~ cl
6 ~ "",
~ ~ ~
~ ~
r~
~ ~
i'; "
~ JI
5' ~ ,~.; ~
-J- ;)j ,<t
<
"'
>
~ .... ~~
\I{ ~ ~
'S' ~
~ ~ ~ ;i.
F : S ~
1. Q ~,
~ ~ S ,i.
.~ ... ... II:;
..
~
~i
b: '1
8 ~
~ ~
i;s Q
R
~ ~
~
'I
Q: '';
'Ii
" r( ~ E
\." ~.! ~~..
I,~~~ ~
~u ~~::
;; ~ ~
* ~
l1-: -:;
,.
~
, "
"
::
II
~ ~
II
D~~ ~q,.
o ,.., \J Q /.{I ".,.,
1..1 0 ~ 0 'j
'':' ":l '.01 ~
'"' '~ ~ Co ~
~
'.'
'"
~1
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
,.
"
'"
~
,
"~
'" .
'" .~
Zi,' ~
~~~
~ $'~'"
~ 2l~' Q
~; 8~
o ~ ~ ~ I
~ ,. ~ 10
,.
It:
;::,
~
$~
",
c
,~ ;,
.", W
f;:. .....
. ~ :>
. (\ ~
~ '"
! tl;
~ '" ,,~
'I> tJ.""\
,Cj -'~I"-o~'''''''' ,,,,..('':'
~ It.: I ,""'
i\........... .~~
".,.~
"~~r~ ...
~,--"'''-
I"~ .
\vF;"'>JHr.~ CREE'r-: ~~Ji)~.
------
~--------
..
:;
-.......---
~
-;
.--------..........---.......
~;:
, ..
,
-1!-"~~
! :}
~ t?
~,~.~~.=~~:
,~ J. .. =t ~ :~
1,~aH
~ 2'~~:
~ '"
J-<U~:,";\.'I
"
..........___........~___2'~~----
---
.~' t'
-,
i::: %1
.~ 5
;..~ i~
S ~
/
/
I
""'.
'"
,
c
~
~
~
"
~~'
-,
1)'1
-c;
~:
\.
.,
~I
:t
"'
~ ~
\,~ '.J
~ it
~~ot
~~~~
~t""~:;.1
~I~.:/~
~h:
~~6@'
..... ...,W
~~~r;
~~~8
~;jIj(S'::li
.~~
~s
..'
'0
~)
:~,
~,
'",
Z. {:
- .,.
>- ~~- .
1\-"
...;..,; '(.,
...., 'L. ~j
;- ;:'''
...... .... :::: ,~~
:;:;;! ?:" :~:
U)~. :~:-,":
~ ~j:':
'i..
~;'
.~...
:-
:-
.~, '
',.;
~
'--
0~
~~~~ ~ ~
~ I", DI~
~~~.~~ ~
~~i~~ '. "
~~~~ '0;-'
,,'
0~}t
~~A~;~ '.,
~
~~~~~ "
:'~,:~r~ -~ -;
~:{~IJ;;.\ " "
~'~ "
::t~~~~ "
II!l! 2~
'... ,~
~~
;~~
{c..
witl; (/l ~:t!
m~~ ;r:~
;~~
'"'~
.",1-,
" ~.
,.. i ',',
"
[\
,
:~
Woo'adBospueIUJ!eOUa~ @AlJa~ 6SS~' f09' ~ ~g :lIao
OZSL6ll0 'puel~s~ m6'cgg'~~g :xe~
la.JIS ~ 51>9 pm'sgnpg :101
"
"
>.
"'
~
~
c
N083CJO 'ON'flHS'v'
M3IAON\itl80U
ar1VNOa~W 3NNA 1
~mmw)Jv ~dgaspUe1
UJ!B8UQ)J
...l
<I::
>
o
CI) :2
z ...Jzw
~z:a:oo::
c..<!~j:C1
>-c:C1~z
Z I- c!)<I::
<l: ::i..J...J[2z
...l -000::0
c.. 1-0::0::-_ ...l
wZ::JI-I-C11- -
1-<l:>-ZZz{) ~
u;...JO::OO~~ UJ
~..Jc..<!uuelO Cl
z<!(!)~zzzo::>->-
wo::~~QQi=Cl..wUJ
I-WCl:JCI)CI)ZW>>
zZ<CWOO<(wo::o::
ow O::O::O::O::-lO::::l::l
UClCla.wwo..l-(J)iI)
't';'~~~~~'7
CI){)()UC,)..JI-
UJUJ
, ,
,,,\
~~ ,
._I\,~_..\"'-
.'., \
.. ",~.,~\ol'f.; \
'to . r;J~~ </r,.~~'" e l ! "',
.} I ,. ,....~p. . -f. ,I --..;:
"-, "'\c' .~.,~ RT " /\.0 1__.' ,. ; i
I ". odo... ''''- n, \ 2~" CUl~:0-''/ ...-.-;:- "':' '^'~ "'. ..~_
:,.' -.....$1': """ V''''vo'-' "\, CRE..E~,..._,.-_...-.t:::: :...~...-. /~/... ,_.!-/:------,,~_^ltJ ';~ -~--"~".-M-..
'( . " -.""8ANY', . ,. ~f' ___~ (' . cr-. ~ '\1 '_..
i . 1 .,..~. """n i:R'E~.' ,../ '" \..' ,~ ... ~,,_, \)
;, -'-~1., ---'"'IT' ......... \..DVJE.\:( u .' .,.~/J ./J"::// -;. ...: ~ '.1 I ....., \" ," '....- _........ \ 1
r . \", .. -,..... '--. ROAD SLoPE / \ " ?'"....f-'" ,.' '..r:,. . . '. -..,Iff.". '
I I X \ ,. " ( OF ." , ~....... I ~ \.!
---.----"-" . 'c', "..... TO w"".......'~A ,,/.....-::, ...''',
J ! \ ,~'- ~ .-..... ..~,.,.., .~~k"'t.i-''''t'cl "\0, \,. /' I u ";,
:;: \\\"~ '.:" ". .~~--~--_..- t~.'..:1Joo. ';', ~~..,/ ~r"-:: "~t
. , /~;~~"~~~~~t~}:~~~{~:k~?f~5~~~:-:;-
1 l~---" ~-~-~~-::::'-'--==':':'::':_-'--'-;'~=':':-:=.:'':':~'-=-~-~=-______~~ s;t,;;:~ c /~......~1"9~
! if 6 /'- '. ~',., --~-7.-"-:-'::~~~" 'c'
I 1.11" ''>1} , ,. ........ ""'. I u ""-<
, I I . '. ..... ,"'":'''. .-,.... 1 I \\ .
i ' .. "_. .,_ /'" I
I I : ............. ", ' ..--..,,- """" 1
i l [ -'--"'-r-".---r-",.. ,.. ... I ", II
~,--,-+ :1- L - .- - I I I ;
I" I --- . I. '.
~ : I ! i \
~ w I I ~,!
~ ~ : I ii '
~ C ! I I ::.
~ i I I
: . I
!;; ~ I :
! ~ 9 I I
i ~ ~: Iii
. I I .,i
i i ,I
: Ii
I i I:
I
- .. ~ ~ . ~
-,
f
p'
'I
"
.... II
':1
~. I
!t......\
.\1 ......
:;Jn~
.
, I
I~
..;
>-
'"
::>
"
'"
-0:
~
I
(J)
z
ct:
...J
a...
w
I-
en
~
o
wc:)'ad~spJeIU~eJU.~ @iilla~ 6SSn09' ~ 1'5 :llaO <lJnp~1!~OJ\f ~dgOS1JUg'I , g
029i6 80 'PUBI~SV <>s6',snVS :X\'~ UJ!B~Ug)l ~ ~ .. N083~O 'ONVlHSV'
.'
l~ai\S \;I gl'S l>6,S'aamg :jal ~ '"
c ;:, " I .. ",-
" <lI , M31^ON\fCl8' OU >-
,2 ~ ~ II> .
.~ " :> !-
~ ~ alVNOa~W 3NNA 1 C>
,::: Q '" ~
1
c
o
U
::;::l
~
+-'
CIJ
C
o
()
c
'C
::;::l
o
c
o
+::
C'U
2:.
<D
(j'J
<D
~
0...
CD
<D
l...
f-
l...
.E
(j'J
c
o
:;::;
ctI
()
\.;:
u
CD
(j)
~ 0
~.Q
~ "<:-
, H
5 .
~ .~ ~~ c
~ >- ~ iF " c 2
.8 . ]~ ~
'ii\ ~ito .
" 'Oil ~
ii % ..<: I
fc~ ~ e .~
! ' ,0 ~i '8 . c ~ ~
. ~
.l-5 . ";0.
. . ~ .. g c
-: ~~.~ ~ ~2 " ~ 0
~ o. ' :5 8 :'2
. 0 .\ilJU "' ~., ,. .Q>
1:~ 0 '0 .ll~ ,; .~ g
~ . ~1!q ~ '. '0
,\10 H . - ~ .sit, '0 p. ~
,<'> ID'~ e
~o 2~ ~] k~ 3 .1:" . Nt .;
% ~ 0- c -
~h~ Q~ 0- 8
H ~.~ ~ .E ~~ 3
.;U~ ~.8 g
~ . ~8 .g:: ':; . -'" e~ 00
.0 0 .0. 1: ~ e ~.~ "
'g~ ,~ 11 ~'g~~ .. "
~ (; .q .<:
:~ S ... 5 c 21 . ~ .~ 0
~~ ~ &&~ ~ ~E 0
*~ c '" . g
'0 ''8 '"
.,,~ d ~]~~ ,Q ~ " ~ .~ 6 <t
'0
1:e "'-"~ ~25~ .s 0" ~ n .;
~5 ~ .;
.90. ig ~ ~ ,$ ~ 'E ~ a~ .
d '. 0; . ~
~"5 ~ ~i 't:-e J:: -t.E
", .;~ :; '5 55
'& . S ..
~~ ';i:; :; ~ 0 ~ '5 ~ 03 :; >. .8" i.<:
~~ 8~~"g- 'i5 ~1fi .~ - " 1'~
05 . c ~, ~ ~ .. I;
fl" '" 5.g5 :? 0- ~ . ~ E
P ~ t; ~ J:"-e ' " " "
]~ ~8 il. 2o!l & 'E 3 ~ E E Jl&' :~
H ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Jl . h .~~
,~~ .e: ~- .~ ~ ~~
-g 8 "'g 1 . 'ill . 0 'p
H .g~ ~R~p ~fi H H ~~
:gi 0>1- 0 ! ~1i~ ~~
2~ .. 8" 8: .0 ;>' ~8. ~.s ~,i::2
82 1l -0> ~~* H ~~
" ;;," ""5 ' J:1 0..
~ ,~ ":11 ~~ ~a~ e ~H g~ ,~ ~
.e- U 'E E
w. >- .0 .
~'" ~:g \lfs!1 ~ ;r~ o " ~~
H CD ....~o ~ on . :<::4-
0 '" ~ ... ~ ~ ::
-
/,
~~ ~~ ~ ~
~* ~~ ~i h ~ ~
~ 0" ;;~ o. .~ ~ <"
~. L.l~~~a: f~ ~ G E~
h~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ @~
. o~~ ~~~ ~B ~>~~
) ~u ~q ~~~e~~
~g ~~~>~"~~~.5
~6 [5~~~b~~3~
-~ e~i~g~~.~~.
"I~ ~~ ~~l;~~iIt~o.
," ~~8~s~~~
~~e..~o't:J~~~.-
-tlIli! 00 W /!J:~;; Vi:::
~~~R,~~~;:tt~ 25
"~~~d. ~~S~~ -
O~~~"8~o~~< G
~:lw"~o~~~,H w
~~~~<O~t;SH~5 ~
~og ~"~8w'~! 0:
t;~~ ~~56~~~o UJ
\'!~~~~~~~1It&~:2 ~
~~~*h~h9~5 ,..
:~~~~~~~~~5~
~g~~"~~:~~~i!
0
z Ol
w c
" 'w
0 " c
;- "
w 0 lL
...J E c
& " .2
Z c. -6
III g 0
0 .c '0
.9 III Ii:
1= ()
" " "
() III ~ ~
w ~
5
n:::
11. 0
UJ X
w
rr::
f-
o ~
- "
" 5
~~
" "
5 E
~$
ij ~
H-
o
8 g
o~
~~
~ .;
H
E'
"
o '"
- .
to
.-
'i~
H
~~
L
" ~
~]
L.
:?-o
H
'~IC
,1; ;
. .
~ ';
';2
'"
,.;
~ ~
~-n~
o " "
Hs
U~
Ul
iH
~1 ~
'0 " u
~~~
~ ~ 0
U,:':t=
~5g
~.~ ~
. E >
0,,'0
~~.
Jl2 g
2 ~ 2
~ " ..
g~-2:
d~
~p
so8
ii g-E
~e>-
;; ~E
.0 w
~U
.,,~
!~'"
~ .
.~
...
N
~
,; i5
. N ]
,5 ~. ~
~ i~ ~
@ 3l~ 1
~ ~ ~ ~
s ~g ~
~ ~~ ''5
- .~ 8 0
~ 2~ !
~ 1l] f
.~ ~ ~ E
~ E ~ 0
~1i ..
g -S~ :=
~ m~ ~
~ :.€ ~ i
~ '*-;;-
~:. ~ ~
~ .:?e !'O
.9 .'= ~ ; ~
i H ~~
,g h d
~ "g:s. it N
..... en ~ ....L g
1l w ~ = jj
" ,lq ~.
~ s~ .~E
~ ~g g~
g ~~ ig
1l M .1;
.~ H ~~
8 i~ ~s
c-'5 '<f II?
~
o
..
5
.2
~
'ii
~ ."
tT '"
i ~ ~
j ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~
! ~~ ~
i n
E ~ ~
C j g
~ .2 i;
S 2 ~
~ ~~
0> 1l g
'g ~ g
." Eo
e.j ~8
~~ ~~
~ REO
~ g ,~~
~:e ~ E
S 2 ki.~
ijf~ "g 0
'" 8 ::! Q
hn
Q; g ~ ~
$~ QJ;g
~. :g '"
~f ~ ~
'~~ .<: '"
~. ~<e
~
'5
~
" .~
~ ~
~ {:
3 "-
" 0
~ 'u
i i ~
~~ ~
~ .
gll
~ c
8~
WO
~~
:;.1:
" .
~l
s ~
,0.
~i
.,=
g@
ii;1l
.ts.~
"
~.
,- .i!l
~~
~g
m"
:; 0;
n
'ti;~
, 0
E-
-"
. "
~l
o.
..;;:
H
H
,..
"
,g
'C
c
8
,;
'"
.,;
x ,~ ,:: '2l= ,= ,= g g l:: ,::,:: 8.::
~.....~"O"O~tSc ~tJ/,l~i3~I';: bI)e
'"
g <:
~ .9
~~
~~
~ 8
- "
~-
~ ~~~ ~~~~~
... ~~IJ) Q~a.lO~
)'!.:.<"""'''''''''''"''''''' 'il "8'il ""''0'0"'' "
o 0 g g 8 ~ 2 9 0 0 0 ~ ~ 9 9 S
~ E ;.0 ';J) c.J) c c: c: ~ e.o Q..O::: ::; t: :: :::
>-
0::
o
I-
Z
UJ
>
Z
W
w
~I
,~ ~
<s..,
~ '"
~~
" ~
~ '"
l-' "
2
OOViI/jOO~r--O~~:~~~::::!~
Nt-..',...) -..q-NI""lrr,o\ ......;
'"
~
'"
~Qj
S;~
D :::
\3 '-
l()I.flO'\\t'i~oo\OCQQOooooeO"':1'~OO
....._ .........- N--
E:~
,2)~
~,"
Ol.(')OOOIFl~V1WltiV)QO\O'rJ<w::"'Oli"')
o-..'"'1"N'o:'f"~Nrr'lf'!jI""j~tf"I"':]'':l'oo::rl('jN
"
'"
J:~
:0 '-
Q '..
000 1""'(;) nNN........-o:r
N....r-OI'-Cl\O.....Nt""'-I'-----r---
~::::; ~ ~ ::::;: :~ ~ .::: ."'. ."'. ,"'. ,"'.
~~CIl :Eg;~ ~-----
...2 E'~ ~ i;;~.2" ~ ",;:;,22.2<8
~ 'ii <t ,Ql,Ql ~ 13 '0 Si, ,=.0 c '':; '., '~ '~ ''::
<; '" 0> <; " '" -'<: -'<: .= Z ;b!!.s..:: ..:: .s
ag ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{r) e ~ -5 "5 ~ ~ 2'-:: .; ~ ,;; ,;; ,5 ,~ .~
~ng.g.en~~~~@@cg
QCCQQ(LocQ.ll.cn.r..Ll..;!. Ll..Ll..
III
'"
'(J
"
~
,.
III
~
't--(\{<""i~J.!)I.Cf'-..eoO'\:='::::!::!~~
-'"I
~ \
I ---\
;--
/' '\
/' '
/~e~~~ I
cfltt~ I
~
/ '~o
, J ~ \
:1\ \
'"'v..;;;"
---
"
~ ;2
"
~
_ ~ N
~
'"
\
'1r--,
--~
\
;;
II
~
l
I i
I
I I
" :;:
"
"- "
.
~ II
l:\,
~II
;\
>--~
~
;:: I I
"
I I
U ~!
~:I J
t' I
I; I
J
r'
I
I! i "
I
".
. ,
,.'
.
, "
\ i..... ...
t \, "-
"-
,
II ...
, "-
"-
II +' -"""-
" "-
'.;.
I I,
\
\
\
\
\ "
"
... 1.
,
\
" ,
03HS
z
<(
...J
0-
Z
o
-
l-
t)
W
I-
o
~
0-
W
W
0::
I-
~
"'-,
S~D
o
3sno~
aNUSIX3
~ l;:
::::.: ~
~ ( ~
~ ( _./' "
&l
~ ~~-
tii lcJ
~
G 0) tJ
""l <-
~ ~ ~
~ t ~
I Y)
~ J r:J a r.tJ
u c.,,) ~
~ II) li)",
LtJ ~ w;: ~
'" >....,J
.~
0) Q) I.e 2\
'1 ") I~
C) 1<
~
~
~
I "
'"
:<;
/ ~ ~
~ ~
/ ~-~ ~
-~
./ ....
~
~ ~
Lu Cj
<: '"
..: Q I,) "
'" o. ~
X 0
'" _I ,~
\ 111 h
\ IL i1! ~ f
"
CL C;;
C) .'
~ c' ~
"
~
" M
V)
"
0)
:;
'"
$.
et
,I
"
'"
~
.--
/' I
/' /pj'll I
I C'J
U
II)
0.1
L..I
N .J
ctJk
t~')
Ci
.,
o
"'
W
0.
g
,0.
"-
o
w
o.
5
V1
e
n.
g;2
'"
€I
o
o
~
o
"1
"-
r.f)
l,d
I'~
<(
C)
Ww
[J >z
Zc;::c
Welt.::
:3 w.
ill ;:; 0:
~::2C
c>c
..l8z
<Z-1
Z"-
o is;
0'-'''
!d~-1
.i'.t"-
I
~
w
z
w
cr
'5
o
'"
u
~
<:
d.
c
!.llW
~:::7
,:; coC
OQt::
-,u.
r:J~ ~o::
~;;:C
>c
50z
-< Z<r
7.. ~:I
0<.:)(/
Oo<r
s,!(o,j
~ t-
"
"
"
...j
"
'"
"
"
~,
<c
9
<n ""
L_ <l.
'" ~
O. "'
Q Ie
f- 0
~ ..
::'
,.J
~
&
o
0,
~ ,
"
~l{;;/R
\
"
[
~
~ 1
'41
~
~
~
li
~
~
~
~
.....
i1
.'
--
.~
:::J
u
'f)
(j
l.tJli)
~
~~
~
~
~
~
~
'~
a
s
~
"'l
I ~
~
J
Cl.; ~
:::....
t-....
"'"'"
~
.; S
~
",- ::..,
tJ: ~
1:5~ 'ct'"
~~ ~.
~~ ~
~8 ~
'" Q" .....,
~ "" ~
~' ~
~
01
v)
"
o
f:'
b
g
a
u
Ii)..
D
14.1"
fC
O"J
"1
3~
010
,,~
"-1/1
a
()
In"
"-I'
-~
O"J"
")
())
~)
.,"
"
l
n
'"
I>J
0::
~
>::)...
60::
ad
-<:
)...::J
-.lCJ
esco
~a
c::CJ
eJCJ
<:~
R
0::
0':
;S;
:5~
Q.
~
l..w
~
()
<:
j:::
CI)
~
lJj
~ w
~ Vi ~
'" i
g
w ~ ':E ~
.. 8
g
"' "
~ '"
.. I!I
"
g w
..
Q
q
tl
Q LrJ
<.> I.u
Lr)(\l
I.u::;:
0 .....oJ Ol
"" i")
<( 0)
0 i")
a:::
..J
w
~
a:::
<.;)
r-:
(f)
x
w
w
o~
:>:w
"""
~m
"'0<
Q
()
LrJ".
I.u~
.....
...
0)""
I'rj
..
i.!
"'.
.
:l!S
~i
..",
se
..
* 01 'Q-
.Ii! "-!! 'l::
" ... ;J
,!l (;" ~
S "'\I
-e~
'tl ~~
i
.. ~
e .2
~
!i
'b
~
.&
.~
~
~
f
~
.8
~ ~
II '"
,g '"
'- ~
~
!, <::l
~
.
il:
..
q
(j
ll)
I.u~
-oJ
"
Ol
"'1
w
~~
mg
_<I>
l$::!
1
l{
~ ~
" "
.., r 8
". ~
;" C;
.. 2
,~ !'l
~ S Q
c:. ~
,- Il: Zt!
to * ~
'" .
~ ~ I
" ~
.
~ ;~ ~ ~
og ~
~
"'
is "' ij
'" ~ ;;;;
"' Cl 3
g ~ ~ c::
"'
@ " Vi
~ ~ 0\
t5 :5
i: ~ iB tJ "
~ LJ. ~ if
'Q ~ "
~ "' i';j
r:: '" if
:.l C) Cj
e
El
~
....
"...,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
II 'il
!l }"
.1 lei
~!l w s
'" I "
'ih g
I~ ~! ~i"irI.:i'''I'l~1
s
,"
fil
tf
n
F.
~~
.~~ j
I. "
'l
111
,;.;1\
~
I ~
~,;i~
I',
t~n
~H
~
@
~
!
1 ~
:.
r',~
~~~
~Jl~
II ~
I ~
"1
1;:
'I' ~
i~. 1 Q.
,
~~
"'
11,
o
_I
"'
k
(]
W
0-
S
'"
"-
o
"-
8
----
~-
.-
--
---
a
\J
to
~
"
Lu "II
,-
a
()
Lf)"
Lw:;:
0,
I')
-'
0)"
')
e
C:
C
lC; N ~J
OJ L~ 5'5
OJ
~.;:~
a
\J
'0 _
lw~
0) 1-
")
8
~
t'
<
~
~
~
~
a
tj
~
~
a
~
,
Ii
wo~'adB3spWluJ!E30"~@,\)Ja~ 6999' W9', P9 :1160
OZSL6 80 'PUEI4S\l Z ~96'Z99' ~ 1'9 :xe:l
laaJIS V 91'S t6~8B8nps :101
~Jnl~~l!qjJV jdejSpUB1
UJIB8Ug)J
'N083tlO 'ONVlHS'v'
M3IAON\itl8 OZL
OTl'VNoa::>w 3NNA 1
g
N
'"
...
'"
:>
'"
:::>
..:
.2 9
w
a >. "
'" ~
c "
~ ~
~
" '"
~./
1---
\
~
/"
'" / \'Iv(
(vi/ ",/ \Z 6~
Grr. '" '" ./ C?-tJ-
/ /'O~~t. l<-
II
-"-"'''''."1
C/;ULylB1-~ I
2~ ~ _-..-1
--1,~ I
i
/
~d
--
-
~
~ ';:: [5
'E ~;
.!l1 IDOl
0. 2'~
,- ...
~ aJ E '0;
Cli.eID.c
a-'u;,:
:;;: '0 ~ 0
~tID=
-ro.c:rn
e 0.- ,
'c (!) U "ffi
(l)C'OC:::;:
aJuro'E
JJ2a.o
~ ~r; ~
ro 'E QJ "C
.c ._ e c
co QJ C Cli
.s::8c:
~~'O:2
QJ _10
'-Olea
~.5'0 '6..
c'Co.o.
~.!l1Q)ro
00..c::::ci.
... (])....... E'~
OU; ....'0
(!)Q)E&ro
e.cQJ .c
.Q - U) OJ =
t:: ,>. e .-
o'Ou;'i5~
0.2 e'5 III
ID~g.og'
.c 't: ro ID ~
--.~O).c.c
o I.. 'E ~ ~
00'-00.
cu2t::>-
~.i!l 'ill ro .:\1
cCQ)o.~
Q)~Eu;-
..co.oroo
z~ ,.eLl";:'
QQ)~2~:?
1---1:::0,1((
<I: roCli Cli'-
(!) e .g.~ ~ 1!
it aJ .:: IS. '0 -:
Q;i:':og.1l2
;.
/ \
.' \
/ 1 -,j C .
/ \ c
/ 3"
/'
/
I
131
I
o
...-
Q)
co
]]
NN
rn....:....:....:...:....:
Q)tilCCroCliCli
l.OOlC'.101OlCl
......l.O......C'?............
J::
<.)
L..
c:l
I)) L..
- Q)
c.>
I1l .-
~o::
-ro
I1l Q)
al.c
..J I'il
Ol:,
llio
CIl.:.:.
:=: 0
c 'c CD
~ ~ 0. (J)
C13 l':!u;
C'J .- C) r:!
:::::::2 cO
c_ Ole
,S ~ Q) g''itj
~ L.. 0. L..-
Q) a r~ ~ 0 5
0.:2.....(9010
C'J'O:!2 c elJ...
~ ro [;: 0 '0. 15
CD~IIlOlQ)E
.S 0 E e e ro
>:r:wOO:I:
~
- III
C.c
:; III
= L..
>.0
:::0
c.-
o ro
'- L..
~ ,~
""
I::: ro
...-
ill.2
C,J Q)
<1:m
'c
.5:
~
U
~
"0
L..
ro=--
:> IJ.)
o e.
J: ro
- U
~"O
0- 'c
!E~ 'iD
CIJ IlJ E
g E 5 ro
"0 W .:: u;:t
E CIJ OJ..E e',
~ 0 0'::; (J) ro
'F.l>->-c-a3-E
c .c,.c (1) L.. 0
'0 0.. 0. ro ro -
.: .m 2 'c 'c ~
~ ~ ~ 0 O'c
822~~~
<<(<(~~o..
l-
I ~ II
U)
~ II
)> "
I-
~
>-
1-
-I
i=:: /
::J )
J
(J,
~I
:::J l
Q.
~o
aJ_
U Ij)
<{co
u~
ow::r: 10 I..::r:
O(lu.l:.l:c
o L.. L.. ro C'IJ Q)
<(<(<I:22o..
~
.
-I
..-,,-r"'\
\.
---\
\
z
o
..-
<(
(!)
C2
~
06
w
0-
<(
U
(j)
. 0-
Z
<X:
...J
-........
.-
\
\
\~
0"-.1
!n
!:--.J
!
I
CJV'ldOd ./6f O'r/3
I
r:o
'>1'
.....
,\;
I
I I
CITY OF
A.SHLAND
Memo
DATE:
February 3, 2010
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
RE:
Issues from January 12,2010 Planning Commission Meeting
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
At the January lih Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested information on the
following issues. In addition, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted a comment
letter which is included in the packet. The items in the letter are briefly addressed at the end of this
memo.
Inclusion of 650 - 750 Mistletoe Road (Mini-Storaae Site) in Croman Mill District
At the January lih Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested information about the
rationale for including the street frontage of the properties located at 650 -750 Mistletoe Road in the
Croman Mill District (see map below). The properties at 650 -750 Mistletoe Road are also known as
the mini-storage site because the easterly portion of the triangular site is developed as a mini-storage
facility. The portion of the mini-storage site located adjacent to the street is included in the Croman Mill
District plan area and designated in the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay.
- 2-
The idea to include the properties in the Croman Mill District was initially raised by the Planning
Commission at study sessions, with specific suggestions regarding the inclusion of the site in the
Croman Mill District as a potential extension of the neighborhood center and as a way to encourage
redevelopment of the mini-storage buildings on the site.
From Staff's perspective, there are several reasons for including the portion of the site adjacent to the
street in the planning area. First, the site physically connects the neighborhood center to the central
employment area, and the inclusion would provide some continuity as people coming into the site travel
along the central boulevard. Second, the area adjacent to the street is largely vacant, and the
development of street frontage under the Croman Mill District Standards would insure a similar
character of development and level of architecture as the bulk of the plan area. Finally, future
development of the site outside of the existing planning approvals would be subject to the Croman Mill
District Green Development Standards.
An alternative to including the property frontage in the Croman Mill District would be to retain the M-l
Industrial zoning, but change the Comprehensive Plan designation to the Croman Mill District Plan.
This would recognize the pre-existing uses, current planning approvals and address the property owner's
concerns regarding the change in zoning, but would allow future requests for the rezoning the property
to be included in the district. Additionally, Staff would recommend including the portion of the site
adjacent to the street in the Detail Site Review Zone. This would require future development adjacent to
the street, outside of the existing planning approvals, to meet a similar level of site planning and
building design to that of the properties fronting the central boulevard in the Croman Mill District.
Under this scenario, the future development adjacent to the street, outside of the existing planning
approvals, would not be subject to the Croman Mill District Green Development Standards.
Options
. Retain the M-l Industrial zoning for 650 -750 Mistletoe Road, change the
Comprehensive Plan designation to Croman Mill, and include the portion of the
site adjacent to the street in the Detail Site Review Zone.
. Include the portion of the site adjacent to the street in the Croman Mill District as
shown in the January 12,2010 draft.
Review of Approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road
Mark DiRienzo testified at the January lih Planning Commission meeting regarding perceived conflicts
between the approved projects on 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road and the proposed zoning and design
standards. Additionally, a written comment from Mark Knox was submitted regarding the same
properties.
The planning approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road are current and valid, but have not been
completed. If the proposed ordinance revisions for the Croman Mill District Plan are adopted, the
proj ects could be developed as approved even if the approved proj ects do not meet the newly adopted
Croman Mill District Standards. The planning approvals in place for the site include: 1) the
development of a second two-story office building approximately 7,000 square feet in size and located
to the north of the existing office building at 700 Mistletoe Road, and 2) the development of a 10,100
square foot building with a partial second story that is comprised of light industrial and office uses
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY 800-735-2900
www.ashland.oLus
r~'
- 3-
including an organic distillery with smaller areas identified for a retail space and a restaurant located at
650 Mistletoe Road (see attached site plans). The second office building was approved with an open
floor plan on each level which was described as potentially being used for retail or light manufacturing.
The distillery occupies approximately 2/3 of the ground floor with a production area, office and retail
space, while the remainder of the building is for separate uses and includes a restaurant space, and
flexible area for light manufacturing and offices.
In terms of context, there are several factors regarding the 650 -750 Mistletoe Road site that are worth
noting. First, more than half of the site acreage is developed with the mini-storage and existing two-
story office building - of the total acreage of 5.6 acres in size, just over two acres of land remains
undeveloped. The vacant two acres on the mini-storage site represents two percent of the overall land
area included in the Croman Mill District plan.
Second, Staff believes the majority of the developable land in the Croman Mill District is situated in a
planned street network in a manner that allows the division into lots which will meet the dimensional,
parking and access requirements of the proposed standards. In contrast, the mini-storage site which was
divided and planned prior to the proposed requirements includes three lots of which the developable
areas adjacent to Mistletoe Road are configured in such away that the lots are considerably wider than
deep. This shallow lot orientation predisposes the buildable areas to also being wide and not deep, and
focuses more of the parking and access to the sides of the buildings. Additionally, the mini-storage site
is somewhat physically isolated because a lack of side streets adjacent to the property. In contrast, the
Croman Mill District includes a grid street network which sets the stage for lot configurations that
integrate the development standards. Also, by providing local streets throughout the bulk of the
property, there are opportunities to design shared accesses within each block, and at the same time
keeping access points focused on local streets with less traffic.
Staff has reviewed the approved developments for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road, and compared the
approved site plan and building designs to the proposed requirements for the Croman Mill District.
Staffs analysis of the approved site plans and building designs for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road is
focused on identifying areas that would not meet the Croman Mill District standards if the applications
were submitted after the standards are adopted, and adjustments that could be made to improve the plan
to benefit the entire plan area in the context of the goals and objectives of the Croman Mill Site
Redevelopment Plan.
Based on Staffs analysis, the existing planning approvals for 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road largely meet
the proposed requirements for the Croman Mill District including the use and dimensional standards
included in Chapter 18.53 as well as the Croman Mill District Standards. Staff identified four areas of
inconsistencies between the approved plans and the Croman Mill District requirements including
limitations on manufacturing and retail uses in the Office Employment zone, limitations on on-site
surface parking, the minimum number of stories and the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
1. Manufacturing and Retail Uses:
The approved industrial/office building at 650 Mistletoe Road (includes organic distillery) would
not meet the use requirements of the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay in terms of
manufacturing food products and the amount of square footage dedicated to manufacturing. The
distillery component of the application would not meet the use requirements for the OE zoning
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-
overlay because manufacture of food products is not permitted. In contrast, the Compatible
Industrial (CI) zoning overlay allows the manufacture of food products as a permitted use.
Additionally, the square footage dedicated to manufacturing exceeds the maximum for the OE
zone by 14 percent (maximum manufacturing in OE is 50 percent of the ground floor area).
Again, the area dedicated to manufacturing would meet the requirements of the CI zoning
overlay.
An adjustment could be made to the OE zoning overlay allowing the manufacture of food
products as a special permitted use. Currently, manufacturing, assembly, fabrication or
packaging is allowed in the OE zoning overlay as a special permitted use.
Options
. Expand the special permitted uses in the OE zoning overlay to include
manufacture of food products.
Whether the mini-storage site is included in the Office Employment (OE) zoning overlay or the
Compatible Industrial (CI) zoning overlay, the approved retail and restaurant space included in
the distillery building exceeds the square footage limitation for "limited stores, restaurants and
shops." The approved plan for the distillery building includes a retail space for the distillery.
Also included on the ground floor is an area for restaurant space, which appears not to be
associated with the distillery. The total area for these two spaces is a little over twice as large as
the area allowed for limited stores, restaurants and shops in the Croman Mill District. The
approved retail and restaurant represents 22 percent of the ground floor area (the maximum
limited store, restaurant and shop area is 10 percent of the ground floor area, or 1,500 square
feet, whichever is less).
Staff recommends retaining size limitations for limited stores, restaurants and shops in the OE,
CI and MU zoning overlays. The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan identifies project
objectives of providing for a large number of family wage jobs, allowing for light industrial and
manufacturing and not creating uses that compete with downtown. With a little over 30 acres
dedicated to each of the OE and CI overlays, and 16 acres dedicated to the MU overlay,
increasing the square footage for stores, restaurants and shops will decrease the available land
area dedicated to office and manufacturing uses. Limited stores, restaurants and shops are
included throughout the plan area in an effort to create a walkable, pedestrian-oriented
employment center. However, a greater amount of retail and restaurants may begin to tip the
balance towards a service center rather than a job center.
2. On-Site Surface Parking Limitation:
The approved buildings at 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road would potentially have difficulties
meeting the Croman Mill District requirement which limits the number of surface lot parking
spaces provided on site to 50 percent of the required off-street parking. For the distillery
building at 650 Mistletoe Road, 64 percent of the required off-street parking would be provided
as surface parking on site, and for the office buildings at 700 Mistletoe Road, 82 percent of the
required off-street parking would be provided as surface parking on site.
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-
The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan includes code language regarding the 50 percent
limitation on on-site surface parking to address efficient use of land for job creation as well as to
address sustainable development practices focused on increasing pedestrian, bicycle and transit
options and decreasing land and resources dedicated to automobiles. This requirement is in part
designed to operate in combination with a district wide parking plan that would involve
providing payment towards shared parking areas and/or a parking structure in-lieu-of required
parking spaces. Other options available to developments are reducing the parking demand
through parking management strategies, constructing on-site parking structures and constructing
off-site parking at designated shared parking.
Staff recommends revising the automobile parking standard VIII-B-3.2 so that a higher
percentage of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on individual
sites until a parking management plan is established for the Croman Mill District, and retaining
the 50 percent requirement once the parking management plan is in place. At the onset of the
plan, a significant reduction of on-site surface parking may prove difficult to achieve through
parking management strategies, private parking structures and shared parking areas without a
system established to contribute towards the construction of public surface parking lots and/or a
parking structure in lieu of required parking spaces.
Options
. Revise automobile parking standard VIII-B-3.2 so that a higher percentage of the
required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking until a parking
management plan is established for the Croman Mill District, and retaining the 50
percent requirement once the parking management plan is in place.
. No change to maximum of 50 percent for required off-street parking that can be
constructed as surface parking.
3. Minimum Number of Stories:
The approved distillery building at 700 Mistletoe Road is one and a half stories, and would not
meet the two-story minimum for the OE overlay zone. However, the distillery building would
meet the minimum story requirement for the CI zoning overlay which requires a second story
that is a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area - the second story of the approved
distillery building is 29 percent of the gross floor area of the approved building.
The approved second office building at 700 Mistletoe Road is two stories and would meet the
minimum two-story requirement.
Staff recommends retaining the requirements for the minimum number of stories as proposed for
the OE and CI zoning overlays. The distillery building and use is more consistent with the CI
zoning overlay. Staff believes the project demonstrates that the approach used for the minimum
number of stories for the CI zone works ell.
4. Minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
The approved buildings at 650 and 700 Mistletoe Road would not meet the minimum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) requirements for the Croman Mill District. The distillery building at 650 Mistletoe
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-
is approved at .36 FAR, and the office buildings at 700 Mistletoe are approved at .51 FAR. The
minimum FAR for the CI overlay is .50, and for the OE zoning overlay is .60.
For comparison, the FAR for the recently approved Modem Fan expansion, a light
manufacturing use on Washington Street is .45 FAR. Additionally, along the main streets in
Ashland (North Main, Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street), the Site Design and Use
Standards currently require a minimum of .35 FAR in non-residential developments.
Staff recommends retaining the FAR requirements as proposed for the OE and CI zoning
overlays. In Staff's opinion, a reduction of the minimum FAR to the level of the approved
proposals for distillery building and office buildings on the mini-storage site would result in
developments in the Croman Mill District that are similar to existing development throughout
Ashland. Again, in an effort to meet the project objective of creating a large number of family
wage jobs, a slight increase in FAR is intended to intensify land use and thereby increase job
creation.
Central Boulevard and 700 Mistletoe Road Driveway Locations
The installation of the Central Blvd., as proposed in the District Plan, would necessitate acquisition of
the ODOT property, and obtaining access through existing properties including the removal of a portion
of an existing building. This is identified as Phase II of the plan.
In the January lih Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
Mark DiRienzo and Mark Knox raised questions as to whether this
proposed alignment would create an unforeseen situation with existing
driveways that would make them inaccessible or dangerous. As the
proposed road has not been engineered, and as such the measure of
changes necessary to existing driveways can not be conclusively
determined. However in mapping the proposed road in consort with
the existing impervious surfaces at this location it demonstrates that
the existing access points to the DiRienzo property can be largely
maintained in their current locations. The existing northern driveway
access point would intersect with a "Local Commercial Street" and
the southern vehicular access point would intersect with the Central
Blvd as shown in the map right. In terms of the safety of these access
points the final engineering for this improvement would identify any
visibility or maneuvering issues and design the street to incorporate
any needed mitigation measures.
Regarding the property in the southeast comer of the map, it is evident
the access would be directly onto the Central Blvd or through an
easement on the developed DiRienzo property. Additionally the
property shown in the southwest of the map would have no other
means of access other than onto the Central Blvd directly. The Limited Auto Access Street standards
proposed in the plan prohibit driveway accesses and thus an exception to this standard may be necessary
to allow for future curb cuts.
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-
295 Mistletoe Road and Hamilton Creek Multi-Use Path
At the Jan lih Public Hearing a concern was raised by an adjacent property owner concerning the
proximity of the proposed multi-use path located along on the Bellview School property to his property
at 295 Mistletoe Rd. It is important to note that currently no easement exists relating to the final location
of this proposed path. As identified in the Croman Mill District plan a bike-pedestrian connection
through this property would be anticipated, however its final location can not be determined until either
an easement is obtained or a development proposal triggers its installation.
In examining the conceptual location presented in the plan, the path in question would be located a
minimum of 50' from this neighboring residential property. A 50' wide flag pole, which is part of the
Blackstone Audio property, separates the residential property and the school district property. The
property at 295 Misltletoe Rd is currently outside the City Limits and occupied by a single family
dwelling, however it has a comprehensive Plan Designation as Employment and therefore would
ultimately develop as a commercial use upon annexation to the City.
There is currently vacant land available to shift the multi-use path location west, however doing so
locates it closer to the newly constructed school building and would bisect existing school grounds with
a public path. Elimination of this Multi-use Path in its entirety would significantly diminish bike and
pedestrian connectivity in the Plan area as it is centrally located to align with the Croman Mill District
center and provides direct access to the School property and Siskiyou Blvd.
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~'
- 8-
Buildable Employment lands
The Industrial zone (M-l) presently allows a variety of uses including offices, restaurants, retail (all uses
permitted in E-l) and more traditional industrial uses. In developing the Croman Mill District Plan it
was recognized that it would be appropriate to more clearly delineate these uses, creating separate
overlay zones that allowed for both light industrial and office employment. Throughout the process it
has been recognized that market forces of agglomeration tend to further focus the concentration of like
businesses to be adjacent to one another. Physical requirements such as topography, proximity to rail
and freeway access, combine with market demand, visibility, land cost, and workforce availability help
determine locations of various business types.
Ultimately the mix of uses that can be developed on the former Croman Mill site in aggregate is not so
different as those uses that can currently be developed within the M-l zone. The primary distinction is
in regulating their distribution to specific areas of the site.
Some opportunity for non-industrial activities such as small employee serving restaurants and minimal
retail opportunities may be important amenities for tenants in industrial overlay zones. Through the
development of the permitted and special permitted uses within the proposed CM -CI zoning overlay,
care has be taken to ensure that the predominate use of the lands in this overlay is light industrial and
manufacturing. In recognition that some industrial lands are irreplaceable given their size, topography
and access to transportation and freight facilities, such considerations were incorporated into the Croman
Mill Redevelopment plan through provisions that help retain the integrity of the industrial CM -CI zone
including the following.
. The location of the industrial overlay zone is on land that is essentially level, adjacent to both the
existing Rail line, and including frontage on the Central Blvd
. Large-lot parcel requirements have been proposed in the dimensional table to avoid incremental
reductions, such as the creation of small lots not suitable for larger scale industrial uses
. Limited retail or other non-industrial space within these special districts
. Flexibility that accommodates a range of industrial uses
These limitations do not exist in M -1 zones and as such 100% of a site may currently be developed with
non-industrial Employment uses. The application of the CM-CI overlay zone thus preserves the
industrial land base in the Croman Mill District for manufacturing, fabrication and assembly uses.
Industrial Lands
The Buildable Lands Inventory (2005) shows approximately 75 gross acres of land currently vacant or
partially vacant that has an Industrial designation within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. Of this
total, 64 gross acres are currently zoned M -1 within the Croman Mill District Plan area as shown in the
table below.
Croman Mill District Gross Acreages
Existing
Comprehensive
Plan
33
31*
East-West
Street
Alignment
Alternative
31
31*
Industrial
Employment
64
25
Original Croman Mill
District Plan
(Crandall-Arambula)
42
40
Current
Proposal
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~'
- 9-
Mixed Use 0 0 16 16
OpenSpace 0 8 7.5** 7.5**
Neighborhood Center 0 6 6 6
Residential (R-1-5) 7 0 0 0
Approximate Gross acreage, rounded to the whole acre. Net acreage would include an approximate 25% reduction to account for public
facilities)
*Does not include 2 acres of E-1 land identified in the original Plan but unchanged by the current proposal (Blackstone Audio properties);
** Does not include 3.5 acres of School ground property identified in the original Plan as open space, but does includes an enlarged open
space area in the vicinity of the pond along Siskiyou Blvd).
.
.
Vacant Commercial Lands (Buildable Land Inventory)
induslllai
employment
commercial
. Approximately 11 acres of vacant developable Industrial land are outside of the Croman Mill
District plan area. These properties are primarily adjacent to the district east of the railroad tracts
and are unaffected by the Croman Mill District Plan.
. Approximately 16 gross acres currently located outside the City Limits along Siskiyou Blvd are
presently designated to be annexed to the City as Employment (E-l) per the City's
Comprehensive Plan map.
. 33 gross acres within the district would be retained as Industrial, and per the requirements of the
proposed CM-CI zone would be specifically reserved for industrial uses.
. A combined 47 gross acres would be designated as either Mixed Use (CM-MU) or Employment
(CM-OE).
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~'
- 10-
. Four acres adjacent to Hamilton Creek currently zoned industrial (M-l) would be within the
proposed Mixed Use Overlay (CM-MU).
. In total 31 of 64 gross acres presently zoned M-l would be located within the CM-OE overlay.
. As proposed 50% of the ground floor of building developed in the CM-OE overlay can be
occupied by industrial Uses. As such, in effect this provision supplies the equivalent of an
additional 15.5 acres (half of the 31 acres zoned CM-OE) as land available for industrial uses
such as assembly and manufacturing.
. The block areas proposed for the CM -CI overlay range from 1.4 acres to 5 acres in size, with
limitations on divisions to ensure a minimum lot size of nearly 1 acre. (note the 2007 EOA
stated "The Croman site is approximately 70 acres; it is unlikely that any individual user would
require more than five acres. Many will need less than one acre" pg5-12)
The 2007 Economic Opportunities Analysis included the following table addressing 'net' buildable
acres by Comprehensive Plan Designation. Net acreage includes up to a 25% reduction from gross
acreage to account for future public facilities (IE Street right of ways).
Table 5. Vacant and partially vacant industrial and other employment land by plan designation and lot
size
Lot Size (Net Buildable Acres)
10.00 ac or
Plan Designation <0.25 0.25-0.49 0.50-0.99 1.00-1.99 2.00-4.99 5.00-9.99 larger Total
Acres
Commercial 0.6 1.1 2.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7
Downtown 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Employment 2.6 5.4 6.1 20.4 32.2 9.8 15.9 92.4
Health Care 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Industrial 0.3 1.5 1.9 5.3 16.7 0.0 31.0 56.7
Total Acres 3.7 8.1 10.1 27.6 49.0 9.8 46.9 155.1
Number of Tax Lots
Commercial 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 11
Downtown 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Employment 18 17 9 15 10 1 1 71
Health Care 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Industrial 4 4 2 3 4 0 2 19
Total Tax Lots 28 24 14 19 14 1 3 103
Percent of Acres 2.4% 5.2% 6.5% 17.8% 31.6% 6.3% 30.2% 100.0%
Percent of Tax Lots 27.2% 23.3% 13.6% 18.4% 13.6% 1.0% 2.9% 100.0%
Source: Ashland buildable lands inventory update, 2005; analysis by ECONorthwest
Minor and Maior Amendment Distinction for Street Layout Modifications
At the January 12th Planning Commission meeting, a concern was regarding the distinction between the
minor and major amendment for street layout modifications. Additionally, a suggestion was remove the
elimination of an accessway from the major amendment process.
To address the ambiguity between the minor and major amendment for street layout modifications, Staff
suggests the language under Major Amendments concerning location of streets as shown below.
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~'
- 11-
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 'Nith the Croman 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 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.
Staff has concerns with revising the proposed ordinance so the elimination of an accessway requires a
minor amendment rather than a major amendment. The accessways were included in the original plan to
provide circulation for pedestrians and bicycles throughout the site and to preserve a grid network that
shapes the form of land uses. Staff believes the accessways and the completion of the grid street
network are critical in making the built form, scale and character result in a walkable, pedestrian scale
employment center that fits Ashland, rather than the suburban office park that so many people reacted
negatively to in the original public workshops.
Green Buildina Bonus
At the January 12th Planning Commission meeting, a concern was raised regarding the bonding and
penalty sections of the Green Building Bonus.
The Green Building Bonus is a voluntary performance standard that allows an increase in building
height in exchange for the construction of a high performance green building standard. The height of
the existing zoning in the plan area has been maintained in the Croman Mill District so that property
owners can construct a building to the maximum height permitted under the current zoning. For
example, a building can currently be built to 40 feet in height in the M -1 Industrial zoning district. If the
property is located in the CI overlay in the Croman Mill District, the maximum height without a bonus is
40 feet. However, if an applicant chooses to construct a LEED certified building in the CI overlay, the
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~'
- 12-
height can be increased by up to two stories, depending on the level of LEED certification (i.e. silver,
gold).
The bonding section of the ordinance requires the applicant who has an approved building with a Green
Building Bonus to submit a lien or bond to the city prior a building permit being issued based on the
value of the additional stories granted through the bonus. The purpose of the bond is ensure that a
project obtaining the Green Building Bonus is built in a manner compliant with LEED standards in that
there is a monetary incentive (release of the bond or lien) for the applicant to achieve the energy
efficiency objectives and obtain certification. The penalty section provides a mechanism for retaining
the lien or bonus with an additional penalty fee if the project ultimately fails to attain LEED
certification. The purpose of the penalty section is to provide a deterrent to building additional stories
without following through on the construction of a high performance green building.
Concern has been raised that the imposition of such a bond or lien as currently proposed would
constitute a significant upfront development cost that could prove to be a disincentive for developers to
apply for the Green Building Bonus. Elimination of the performance bond and penalty sections at this
time would not prohibit the City from adding similar provisions at a future date if it were determined
that developments had benefited from the Green Building Bonus and had failed to achieve the necessary
energy efficiency objectives as demonstrated through LEED certification.
Options
. No change to the Green Building Bonus performance bond and penalty sections.
. Reduce the Green Building Bonus performance bond and or penalty amounts.
. Delete the Green Building Bonus performance bond and or penalty sections.
Menu for Green Standards
At the January lih Planning Commission meeting, a question was raised regarding the previously
discussed suggestion that several of the Green Development Standards be combined to provide a menu
of items the applicant could chose from. Specifically, standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-12 (p 26) were
originally part of list of standards that were recommendations rather than requirements. For the latest
draft, those items were separated into individual standards and strengthened to be requirements rather
than recommendations. However, in reviewing the original redevelopment plan, Staff found one of the
project objectives was to "develop standards for 'dark skies"'. As a result, Staff believes standard VIII-
C-12 regarding down-shielded light fixtures should be retained as a stand alone requirement for
consistency with the original plan objectives. This would leave four standards available for the menu of
items to choose from. Staff felt the four remaining items (i.e. potable water reduction for irrigation,
solar orientation, building shading and recycled materials) are somewhat unrelated, and therefore
included standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-ll as separate requirements. However, the alternative of
creating an option of allowing applicants to choose one or two of the four items could be easily
accommodated.
ODOT Comments
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted a written comment on February 1,2010
regarding the Croman Mill District Plan. The letter addresses several items from the perspective of
ODOT as the property owner of the maintenance yard located on Tolman Creek Road, and comments
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~'
- 13-
regarding the findings document meeting the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR
660-012-0060). Staff has had discussions with ODOT staff, and believes all of the concerns raised in
the letter can be addressed.
In terms of the ODOT maintenance yard, the issues raised by ODOT are the need to clearly state in the
plan that the ODOT yard would need to move in the second phase of the project, and addressing the
ability of ODOT to rebuild structure on the maintenance site in the case of a fire or natural hazard
destroying the structures. Additionally, a concern is raised regarding having to meet the proposed
design standards in the case a destroyed maintenance yard structure needs to be rebuilt. Staff believes
minor revisions can be made to the plan to address the concerns raised by ODOT as the property owner
of the maintenance yard.
The traffic analysis revisions and findings for the Transportation Planning Rule will be addressed in the
findings prepared for the City Council's decision. Staff is in the process of working to have the
transportation analysis updated to address ODOT's concerns. To address the Transportation Planning
Rule, the adopted findings may need to include an update to the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
project list identifying several transportation projects associated with the Croman Mill District.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on the Croman Mill District
Implementation Package to the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting so that Staff can bring
back revisions to address the concerns raised by ODOr.
Attachments
1. Approved Site Plan for 650 Mistletoe Road
2. Approved Site Plan for 700 Mistletoe Road
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~'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
u\fOO>O.u LJ.:>f><
C
tll
~[
2
ii5
1 No
.a~
o '"
~~
.s:::ro
eo
-< ~
II)
'"
o
I
-v
o
o
'"
:z
o
G
-<:
N ~
o z
I")
N ~
...J
.....J ll..
J- ~
<( g:
'It 0
..... i-
i.IJ 0
..... !!:t
IXJ
IJ) ~
I")
~
a::
&) lJ:
w 0
J- g:
o
Z .,..: N
"-
I'l
<:>
o
!
...I
lI.J
'-'
a::
..:
0...
....
<(
....
Z
lJJ
'"
it
o
~
uJ
Cl
!::!
(Ij
c::
o
II..
-
I
<I;
I'i
..t
tri <.0
r--:
/
/
/
I
;1
o
\
I')
...."
~~1lI
cr:l
~"a
'1),,,\
~.
o
\
\
~,~
_.._-!ll~
GJ
~~ ~~
.... III a;>
....r(( AN
~<: ~~
(/) -g ~.....
<!! :g;:r;
~~ ~~
...
o
~
o
0:
'"
'"
pOO~ '>!;/3JO UDlJJlOl 7j
f
~
~ ><
Cl
OZ9L6 tlO 'OMl1HSif
avot! 301311SIl^J 099
V'lICf8 ltlnS ClO='
~ 3S'fHd 1~3rOC!d 3Sn 03XIlt\I
M3JA3H 311S
L ~~ _~. ~. ~____~
cii
o
o
....J
en
@
w
()
<:(
ll..
0:::
:J
if)
(f)
:J
o
5
0:::
W
a.
~
I.J...
o
<0 0
g Z
'" f-
()
w
"'-
00
"'<I"
1\.0
w"'"
...),
<( 0
0:::;
>
OJ
OC
~ f5
IJ") '"
..... ::E
w co :>
8 ~$ ~
'" Z 0 W
~~ w"<T w
I::; :;10 ~
()...,.... Vl
Vl
I ~ o8888ggS ~~ ~.....
::F\lJ<:Q 8<:Qo..,.II)"'0>0 t'- III
if) O~~ ~rirlO~~N~ ~ ~
~ ririr-.. .,.......... _,...
Z
0:::
a.
f-
a
o
I..L.
C!)
o
....J
CD
m
..r.
...J
;:
g
l!)
::>
. >1Il
<OJ......
~
~1 IT , \~
~ .'"1""" ,'" ',",; ! w..
\'71l' -,J ~: :!\t~~ ~
~;(~I; ~~L~';; ~,~7 I~;.~ '
,.nTt~ 1\ LI JJ.1.l- !II r1 I" It, ~J
II l- +-rl i\ ~S.C_~~.,,,-,.;c-~
( \\1 \ II '~.k--.r...
/ c-:....~ '- ~\ 1-\ b '\
.1 .' ~ ~ \C2'-:..:.:.,:.C ~ _ \ ([ I \
\ , J ,J, \ III ii~1 I 1 ~ ') __________
~ ~~~ YLL- ~4 ~I q __________:
a ~\,,>\~ --71 ~':..(f -<f ..:. ~>'--""'''''''i~r
f.,0'1 / \ ~40i~"'~:',~ 1:1~1!!!li!I!a<i L \ \. __
1 i~1 / ;: ..",- [ <; ~td:-r\~~
;. ~\/ f\ ~1"Jl;1''-- t~ Q:l \') r{--.. ~ .4-
~ / I ~ I \ ~ -.;; ~ ~ b ~ C ~ ~-:I-"'_
J: I~ ~~ a ~ Cil ~I .~~t.d..;
tl I ~ ~ \ ~~ r.ij rl _' I
.;t" 11 ~I' ~ i \ \ ;:J~ I ~,J ,
I 11,1>.":11 ~ ~ \l J I \1:::- L--~ I
:///J ~\ ~~ _I- _ ~r ,.,/STUfoE/lOAD
/ (;/ !! 1" . 6<>4.17 "" _~.
J:r--:. J-- -~ t
l'71 __ ~ 15 I G
-~- .., Iil ~ Iil
~ r >'
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ <:> ti
~ c. :>: ~:>:
~ III Il! x ~
z .., ~ F
~~ ~ ~ ~
~
0'1i of.
00
'l,'t'
0""
~
1/
/
/
ui
t-=
z
a..
<(
~
>-
I--
Z
(3
:>
o z
Ij;! 0
o F -:5
2i t3 ~
" rc ~
w c:: 10
<0 Cl W
~ ~ ~~
(f) <.> a:: (I?
w z~::J
c:: F 0..:
5 ~~:=
~ ui[ .l!!5
C!iCl) ~~ ~ffi~
~ I ~L.. -:::J!ll:
:J <en oc::c.
,..f:J ~~ ..~PiiIJj
g[5 vi :>-...Jite"cr>c::..:
!< ~ ::t~ >=w~w
13f7J n.F2~;:)~iQ~z~
- za::f"-F=_-
CIlC) 4l<[~~<.?<i39-l:l
Cz wC::o OiXloS
~FVlO5:!~~ii':w":llll:5
-<~~~J;!-F9:::~Il5,..-<o:
~~~~t!~~oVlo<g8
o::C::;:)o;;::ZW~wa;~Vl:J:
00 ~~< ...
l1.....f5f5~15f5~;;:~b~......
>-til1.u..L..l1.l1.FCIlo..O::l:Q
~>..J-'...J-'-':Z"'O::""O::;5
g:;g:;5~~~~:5~:5~QIIl
if) V1(()UQ(.l(..H..>c.o..::><ll!:o
W wl:Jltlt:Jl:jltlltl~~135~~
I- !:l(llIllIll(l)IIlVlUlUC::I/)Wg
Oz ...... ,o..:c-.io::
"::~tr)'VlO(or--.COCD,....~.....O
.....
w
5
w
c::
G:
~
(I)
W
ii:
-<
o
z
::>
o
OJ
!-
Z
02
i::
o
o
l1.
~
%
5
..J
S
l!)
W
..J
III
:;;
o
w
0..
tl..
<0::
()
5
z
<(
.;.
w
z
o
N
<.)
:z
52
~
0..
o
Z
~
f5
0..
o
0::
0..
~ ~ I
'.l\
I~
~/
~J.
~.
I
/
~
G
-
--
~
<[:>(
0::::;
0-,
_Nr'l..,.ll'l'Ol'-ro
(,)00(,,)0000
0,
0
Z N~
<(
..J
0..
w
!-
1?)
.J "0
<( ~
0:;':
::J'
!-15
0 II b
w
!-' on
:E ..
o~
0:::<[
<(~ b
tv
...i,
\
\
\
\
17~.36
c:
OJ
a:
~2
(fJ~
I :i
<(0
~
~
<{
B
c.
::>
o
c::
"
~
g
..J
l!) ~
17l 0
...... ....
PUBLIC INPUT
1:_(?/~~1g).,A,pcr~b~~0EIfof(.:-~.~-: ~::::~~;.-.
o~_~aflil
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
wendy eppinger <wendye@mind.net>
<Iucasa@ashland.or.us>
2/9/2010 2:48 PM
hold off.....
RECEIVED
please don't make any decisions about the Croman property until it
works for everyone] We need jobs for our town... so spend some more
time; listen to the objections and make it work!
F l G - 9 2010
i ~ ~ ,'. ~.[;; :~vj
c.:..... 1_ I. -"'-:'">1t
Page 1 of2
RECEIVED
April Lucas - Traffic - P A 2009-01292
m - 9 2010
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Colin Swales <colinswales@gmai1.com>
Mike Faught <faughtm@ashland.or.us>
2/9/2010 10:33 AM
Traffic - PA 2009-01292
BHl Molnar <bi11@ashland.or.us>, Nancy Slocum <nancy@ashland.or.us>, April Lucas
<lucasa@ashland.or.us>
City of Ashland
Community Development
Mike,
(cc Bill, Nancy, April,)
[ For the Record PA 2009-01292 note - I am not representing other than my own views herein)
I never did thank you for preparing to brief the Transportation Commission on the comprehensive Traffic Impact
Analysis [TIA] for the Croman Master Plan for our last meeting. Sadly due to the time constraints, and the feeling by
some commission members that any input into the process was a bit late, your interesting briefing was cut rather short.
Being out of town, ] have now have only just had a chance to take a look at the last month's PC minutes and the FC
meeting. Racket for tonight's meeting and apart from some suggestions in a memo from ODOT [pages 114/5 ]
regarding the TIA. I cannot see any other information provided for the Planning Commissioners regarding the overall
traffic analysis and the various mitigation elements required, as was provided to the TC Will you be briefing the PC
tonight on the riA?
At the Transportation Workshop recently held by Dr. Mojie Takallou Ph.D., P.E., some of the ODOT reps there
suggested that once a property is re-zoned it is considered that the surrounding infrastructure is then deemed
sufficient for all permitted development. (Makes me think of the ongoing Wal-Mart debacle in Medford)
As the applicant for this re-zone etc. is not in fact the Croman property owner but is instead the City itself, will the
Ashland taxpayers be responsible for paying for all the infrastructure mitigation? I only mention this as the consultants
Crandall Arambula told us that upfront infrastructure costs of perhaps $5 million might be needed. It would be good to
have some idea of how the overall financing of this project, so far presumably paid for by the public by way of grant
funds, is going to work in practice. As the profits flowing from the property upzoning will be going to the private
landowners, what is their share of the infrastructure/master planning costs?
I note that the Council in Nov 2009 had it as one of their Goals "..develop an implementation strategy for funding
and infrastructure for Croman... II [mv.w.~~bJ!lllc:l,()r-,uslFiIes/Goal Setting 20 I 0 Atch.pdf. 2009-11-25 ] . I have heard of
possible things such as an urban renewal zone, but so far nothing concrete.
Seems like the cmt is before the horse....
Does Staff have any more ideas on this?
Do Staff have any updated estimate of what possible capital costs might be involved?
How are such costs to be apportioned between the various stakeholders?
I sincerely hope the PC can be given all the information needed to come to an informed decision and
recommendation to Council on this matter.
thanks
Colin Swales
Jalisco, MX
file:ffC:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4B713AOEAshDo... 2/9/2010
Page 1 of2
April Lucas M Fwd: comments on Croman Mill planning
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Brandon Goldman
April Lucas
2/3/20104:22 PM
Fwd: comments on Croman Mill planning
Bill Molnar; Maria Harris
RECEIVED
FEB - 3 2010
Letter from Neil Smith (Airspace) for the Commissioner packet & record.
cay of Ashland
Communay Devetq
On 02/01/201008:10 PM, neil wrote:
Pam,
I am writing this email to you as a business owner, who until recently had seriously considered
expansion within the city of Ashland.
Although I understand that as the chairman of the City of Ashland Planning Commission, you are
certainly not responsible for my decision to put move my business elsewhere, J was encouraged to
make my opinions known.
In particular I would like to address how the Croman Mill Plan has changed my views on whether or
not Ashland is the business friendly city that I previously envisioned. You may be thinking business
friendly -"what's he thinking". To illuminate that point, be aware that I moved up here to create a
new business, and have been doing business here for about 2 years. Business friendly to me, does
not mean inexpensive, dirty, or ugly. In fact, business friendly, to my mind, means a town that is
pleasant to live and work in, allows me to conduct business, makes and upholds laws in a just
manner, and continually strives to improve the quality of life.
Delivering a business and people friendly city is not a trivial task, and yet such an environment and
culture has to be delivered for a reasonable price.
Perhaps I am misinformed, but the plan that has been developed for the Croman Mill site seems to
be comprised of many different agendas,and in doing so it becomes overly expensive, most likely
bureaucratically constrained, and more damning yet, just a copy of California's suburbs.
After reading the plan, I would like to communicate my perspective with some isolated points.
If your plan has references to quality and aesthetics that require city interpretation, you will scare
away any businessperson who has heard about the difficulty of working with the city of Ashland's
permit process.
Between the rail spur easement, the commuter rail platform easement, the open space, the tree~
lined streets, the restrictions on buildings, what's left? What customer will pay for all this? I am not a
planning expert, but this plan looks very much car-centric with an overlay of "green".
I strongly encourage you to NOT require Leed certification. This is a proprietary system and
although it attempts to provide environmental guidance, government should use open standards.
There is a better way.
I would encourage you take the perspective of the type of entrepreneur who will potentially relocate
to Ashland. You should respect the cost constraints of business, and also be aware that past
successes are almost certainly not to be repeated. Just as the timber and house building industries
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\LocaI Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B69A2BEAshDo... 2/3/2010
Page 2 of2
have waxed and waned, you have to direct your attention future industries and occupations. And
here is a hint. The future will have to deliver more value for less money.
Neil Smith
AirScape Inc.
www.airSCj:1RElf~n$__QQ.m
file ://C: \Documents and Settings\lucasa \Local Settings\ T emp\XPgrpwise \4 B69 A2BEAshDo... 2/3/2010
Page 1 of2
April Lucas - Re: Fwd: DiRienzo - Additional input on Croman
From:
April Lucas
Maria Harris
Re: Fwd: DiRienzo - Additional input on Croman
____~_.________________________Clty-0f.&.t1Jan(L
CornrnunHy Development
F E B-2 20iD
To:
SUbject:
>>> "Mark D" <markd@mind.net> 02/02/10 3:48 PM >>>
Hi Bill, I write to re-iterate my serious concerns about two things. A.. The status of the Croman Mill plan overall
and B. The sudden inclusion of Mistletoe Road Business Park (my 6 acre property including the completed office
building and storage space) and it's proposed downzoning to OlE.
A. The plan overall if approved will create the unintended consequences of:
1. Further restricting economic development with the City of Ashland by making it cost prohibitive and
complicated to move ones business here.
2. Creating impractical buildings that may not meet the dimensional needs of potential users or the reality of
every day use required by businesses.
3. Complicating the design and construction process as it relates to street frontage and actual grade
Changes on the Croman Site, leaving buildings floating in the air on one end or buried on another.
4. Creating structures which no business can afford to rent For the past ten years (and possibly more) the
commercial rents in Ashland have not supported the costs of new construction. This proposed plan
simply adds more barriers to development and adds signiflcant costs per sq. ft to any project being
proposed. Rents will have to rise and business will leave and others will never come. It's happened
already, Airscape, a potential 15,000 sq ft user has waited patiently to see what the plan will be for
Croman and is so disappointed with the results of the planning process that they are now moving from
Ashland to Medford in the next two months. They moved to Ashland 2 years ago and wanted to grow
their business in Ashland, the process failed them.
5. Exposing the City to legal action that wi1l further delay the possibilities of economic development at
Croman Mill.
B. The sudden inclusion of my property into this plan and the proposal by staff to downzone this 6 acre property
from M-1 to the new OlE is unacceptable to me. I've been involved in the Croman Mill public process for 2 years
and my property was never discussed as being subject to a potential downzone until 2 weeks ago, the day
before the planning commission was supposed to approve the plan to move on to Council. I am in the middle of
a previously approved multi-phased development and have built a 7,500 sq ft office building and a 70,000 sq ft
storage business to date. Additionally, I have a building pad prepped and parking lot installed for our next
building as well as an approved and "current" land use approval for a 10,000 sq. ft. building that has uses that
will no longer be allowed within the "new" DIE zone. I urge you to remove my property from the proposed
masterplan. Some reason include but are not limited to:
1. You are removing 6 acres of M-1 from the city industrial land inventories. M-1 zoning is a flexible zone, it
allows office and employment uses as well as assembly and fabrication in % that business can
realistically use), why downzone my property to restrict it's use, aren't we trying to attract businesses by
offering flexible zoning.
2. The most successful businesses in Ashland tend to require mixed activities. Blackstone, Modern Fan,
Dream Saks, Massiff, Adroit, OSF, Hakatai, all of these businesses require high level office for
professionals combined with warehousing/fabrication/assembly spaces. The proposed zones DIE and
Cll segregate these uses making it practically challenging to design and construct a useable building. My
current M-1 zoning would allow for any of these business to move to my property right now and the
proposed down-zoning would prohibit them from moving to my property. This is bad for businesses, bad
for the City, and bad for my property.
3. I believe [ have a vested rights to develop in current zone as proven by the millions of dollars I have spent
improving the site, constructing buildings based on recent land use approvals, further obtaining approved
site design applications for future buildings that comply with M-1 zone, for donating land to the city of
Ashland to widen Mistletoe Road, paying to improve Mistletoe Road, gifting the City a 10' wide bike
easement along our north property line, and building everything on that site in compliance with the M-1
about:blank
2/3/2010
Page 2 of2
zone.
Lastly, I have attached a pdf document of my comments made before the Planning Commission at the January
12th, 2010 meeting so that they can be made part of the written record rather than just the video record.
Please consider my input.
Regards,
Mark DiRienzo
700 Mistletoe Road #106
Ashland, OR 97520
541-621-8393
about:blank
2/3/2010
DiRienzo, 700 Mistletoe Road
January 12,2010 Planning Commission Comments
I own Mistletoe Road Business Park, a 6 acre M-l zoned property on Mistletoe Road.
Having helped to design the site, build the buildings, and worked in the office building so
I have some understanding of the issues out there. I've attended the public meetings and
the site visit on the Croman project from the beginning (although having young kids
makes it a challenge to be at every single meeting).
I support the idea of developing a flourishing business area for Ashland to improve our
economic situation, but 1 feel strongly that there must be the utmost care in drafting this
code and that to date this process has been hampered by a series of separate dialogues
that staff is now required to somehow compile into a clear, useable code.
I feel that the proposed code needs a review from people in the private sector that have
built projects in Ashland and have professional expertise in engineering, construction,
and architecture. Also we should include business owners and real estate brokers who
truly understand the needs of commercial users. Each of these reviewers can assist our
staff in understanding exactly how this code can be used and the pitfalls that lie in it
today.
Without this review, 1 believe we will end up with another section of code that is
impossible to interpret and one that creates cost prohibitive developments that businesses
cannot practically use. The site will build out slowly, if at all, and no-one will be happy
with results.
Brandon kindly sent me an email yesterday pointing to the most recent proposed
language, I was able to look through the documents briefly and have found a number of
problem meas, EXAMPLES:
1. The Majority of parking must be in the real' of the building with a minority along
the side. This will generate buildings that are wider along the street and narrow
front to back, creating TWO significant problems:
a, Grade change. The properties on Croman slope significantly from south
to north along the existing and proposed street frontage on Mistletoe. To
keep a level floor inside, and to meet ADA sidewalk standards, buildings
will either have to be buried into the uphill side or be built up on the
downhill side.
b. Access into the building: parking in the rear and walking clear around a
building to get inside is impractical. The buildings will be wide so the
front door will be 12 way around the building just to walk inside.
I don't have time to go through all ofthis since there is a personal element to my
comments tonight.
In phase 1 of our business park project we built the brick and glass office building and
the self storage facility. For phase 2, we have approved plans for a 10,000 sq. ft.
distillery building for Organic Nation Vodka on our north vacant 12 acre (the company is
DiRienzo, 700 Mistletoe Road
January 12,2010 Planning Commission Comments
awaiting financing for this project) and we are in talks with a energy efficiency
engineering company that wants a 15,000 design and assembly space on our south lot.
All of this fits perfectly with our plans to develop a world class business park on our MI
zoned land.
I just found out yesterday from staff that my project is suddenly being wrapped into the
Croman Plan and being rezoned as OfficelEmployment from M -I. After all these public
meetings, walking the Mill site with commissioners and staff, and being told that my
propel1y was not part of the master plan, I feel blindsided.
. I can no longer build for Organic Nation because the new zone prohibits it, so
their investment in the planning approval completely lost.
. I have to call my prospective tenant and tell them that my property no longer is
zoned to accommodate his business.
. I also have to tell my employees at the office building that the road realignment
will be creating a deadly corner directly in front of our office building.
. I also have to tell my New Zealand business partner on this project that this new
zoning will make our property non-conforming.
o That we cannot build our planned office building next to the one we've
built because the new rules don't allow that same design and layout even
though we've already installed the parking lot and sidewalks.
o That we've lost the flexibility ofM-! zoning which gives us some
freedom to accommodate the needs of the actual tenants who are looking
for space on Mistletoe Road, not just some possible future tenant that
someone says will someday show up, but the actual prospective tenants
that exist today.
. I will now own a propel1y that is partially in the Mill district and pal1ially out of
it, will our lender approve this, will this be practical for the MI industrial zone
behind my office buildings when industrial users drive through my office area?
I cannot accept this sh011notice inclusion of my property into the Croman site without
adequate time to review its impacts. I request time to discuss these impacts with staff and
appropriate master planning time for my site too.
Lastly, consider delaying this approval, encourage a review of the practical
implementation of this code, so that we all know how it will be implemented before
moving ahead, The project has been delayed any what is another month or two to get it
right this time?
Mark DiRienzo
700 Mistletoe Road # 1 06
Ashland, OR 97520
541-621-8393
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor
OJ'egon Department of Transportation
District 8
100 Antelope Road
RECEiVED White City, OR 97503
Telephone (541) 774-6299
FAX (541) 774-6349
Febmary 1,2010
Bill Molnar
Community Development Director
City of AsWand
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
FEB - 2 2010
File Code:
City of Ashinnd
Community Development
RB: Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
Dear Bill,
We appreciate the work the city has put into redevelopment ofthe Croman Mill Site and understand the city's
desire to revitalize tltis area. Redevelopment is expected to increase employment and provide needed housing
options for city residents. We also appreciate your willingness to work with lIS in relation to the Ashland
Maintenance Yard located within the proposed Croman Mill District. As we discussed on the phone, we would
like to share some of our comments as they relate to State transportation facilities.
First, the redevelopment plan indicates development of a "signature street" referenced in the document as Central
Boulevard. As cunently written, the plan assumes that this road will traverse through the Maintenance Yard via
an easement. We understand that the plan is being revised to remove any reference to easements through the
property, and will instead add language indicating the need to purchase the property for plalmed development to
occur.
We were also concerned that with our ability to reconstmct the maintenance buildings should a flte or other
disaster occur, necessitating their replacement. We are concerned with our ability to rebuild and meet the new
design standards contained in the proposed neighborhood conunercial zone. You have indicated that city staff is
working to develop language that will allow replacement of these buildings should a catastrophic event occur.
With these two changes (purchase of property and allowing building replacemellt), ODOT is satisfied, but would
like to review actual language before final adoption.
Alternately, one solution perhaps not considered that would allow building replacement and increase the
likelihood of redevelopment would be the "down zoning" of our property. As currently proposed, the
maintenance yard zoning will change to allow commercial development. This is expected to greatly increase the
value ofthe property. Instead, tlte city might consider changing our zoning to public reserve and making the
property less costly to redevelop.
Secondly, we understand the city will be updating the traffic analysis completed for the Croman Mill District.
One suggestion would be to phase the traffic analysis consistent with expected redevelopment. For example, the
current traffic analysis relies upon the new Central Boulevard to distribute traffic both north and south ofthe site
to Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. Since it is unknown when ODOT will be able to relocate, the traffic
analysis should indicate impacts to Siskiyou Boulevard as opposed to diverting some of the traffic northward.
As DLCD pointed out in their November letter, the traffic analysis will be important to make findings consistent
with the transportation-plalming mle. We would be happy to offer our assistance as you develop these findings.
Findings will need to identify planned improvements as well as their funding.
We look forward to working with you further as this plan moves forward. Please enter this letter into the record.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 541-957-3658.
Michael Baker
ODOT Principal Plamter
Attachment: DKS Traffic Impact Analysis (Croman Mill) Review
STATE OF OREGON
INTEROFFICE MEMO
Department of Transportation
Region 3, District 8 Development Review
Traffic Engineering Section
100 Antelope Road
White City, Oregon 97503
P: (504) 774-6316 F; (504) 774-6349
Date: January 29,2010
TO:
Shawn Stephen
Assistant District 8 Manager
FROM:
Wei "Michael" Wang, P.E. & M.s.
Development Review Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT:
Review of Croman Mill Transpol'tation Report
Dated January 2, 2009
rINpt~ ~il'~a1t~}i~ ~a't8i!t~ifiJtf~ ~([~:iWlrteit~~l~r~ff,~-~rJfif%*l~~~t~~~~~!~~!}i~f~~~~~R~~~~~~~1t~f~l~~tEllli*&t~s~~ji~t~
1 4 Figure 2 The peak hour volumes are not balanced in Figure 2. There is no
information about truck percentage, peak hour factor, pedestrian, bike
volume, and bus percentage in this analysis.
2 6,14,16, Table 1,7, 8, Please provide 95111 percentile queue length for all the intersections. Region
17,18,19 9,10,11, 3 Traffic would like to review the related Synchro files and default settings
20,21 12,13 for these intersections.
3 12,16 On page 12, the TIA indicates that the realignment of Tolman Road has the
potential to divert 24 % or between 50-100 peak hour trips due to a less
direct north/south route to connect to/from OR 99 and Hwy 66. Please
provide detailed analysis to show the fact that the 50-100 diverted trips are
included in the new Signature Street & OR 99 intersection vlc calculation.
On page 16, the TIA discusses changing the peak hour factor from 0.81 to
0.92 for future analysis based on the commuter rail service. Region 3
Traffic are not aware of the conunuter rail system in Rogue Valley area.
Please provide the detailed information and verify this mitigation
measurement.
4 17 Paragraph 3 Based on Figure 6 mitigation, there will be all EB left tum and a WB right
turn mitigation at the intersection of Hwy 66 & 15 NB Alternative B.
Change the phrase "In addition, a separate westbound right turn pocket
would be,.." to "In addition, a separate eastbound left and a westbound
right turn pocket would be..."
5 21 Paragraph 3 Based on Figure 6, there will be an EB left turn and a WE right turn
mitigation at the intersection ofHwy 66 & 1-5 NB Alternative D.
Change the phrase "This consisted of signalization and adding a separate
westbound right turn poc~et." to "This consisted of signalization and .
adding a separate eastbound left and a westbound right turn pocket."
6 General Mitigation ODOT is planning to rebuild the Exit 14 interchange. The proposed
interchange will have a four lane cross road with ramps in a diamond
configuration. The intersections of Hwy 66 & 1-5 NB, Hwy 66 & 1-5 SB
will be signalized. Please coordinate with ODOT for the 2030 Croman Mill
mitigation at these two intersections.
7 General Mitigation At the intersection of Hwy 66 & Washington Street, Region 3 Traffic is not
willing to support the signalization of this intersection due to its proximity
to the Hwy 66 & 1-5 SB intersection, which will be signalized with the
interchange reconstruction project.
A non-traversable median will be installed along the west side of the
interchange from the ramp terminals to Tolman Creek Road as outlined in
the 1-5 interchange 14 lAMP.
8 General Mitigation There is not enough sight distance for turning movement from OR 99 to
Mistletoe Road and from Mistletoe to OR 99. Region 3 Traffic would like
to seek the opportunity to close the Misteltoe approach due to this safety
issue. Misteltoe should become a cul-de-sac. The traffic will access to OR
99 via the proposed Signature Street.
9 General Mitigation The mitigation for the intersection of Tolman Creek & Mistletoe is
proposed to be a signalized intersection with the lane configuration
changed to a tee intersection. Please notify the ODOT Rail department of
these proposed changes and get approval with this mitigation.
10 General Mitigation The Signature Street proposal indicates the street will go through the
existing onOT maintenance facility. Is the developer proposing to
purchase ODOT's property for the new street? Please indicate any
additional mitigation if this connection is not completed.
If you have any questions regarding my comments, please caU me at (541) 774-6316.
cc: Shyam Sharma, Region 3
Ron Hughes, Region 3
Jerry Marmon, Region 3
RECEIVED
FeblU31Y 1, 2010
FEB - 1 2010
To: April Lucasa
City of Ashland
C<>mmunlty Develo,. ,. "'t
For: Ashland Planning Commissioners
Regarding: Amended Land Use Ordinance and Croman Mill Site Development
Deal' Commissioners:
I watched your meeting as you struggled with the approval of the Croman site development and
plan. I was glad to hear your reservations about the plan and that a few of you noticed that no
public showed up to comment. There was a request for anyone to give you some feedback so
here are my comments.
I tried initially to attend all the meetings. This project will dramatically affect my business and
home properties located on Tolman Creek Rd. Having lived in this area for over 40 years, I felt I
had something to contribute and a selfish interest in what you do in my area.
The initial meetings brought constmctive along with ridiculous comments from the audience as
we each tried to explain our concerns in the short time allotted. From the st31t, I felt that since the
firm that was hired was not fi.-om our area it was not familiar enough with the area to handle this
project. I got the feeling that they were putting up with the public meetings for a "head count" for
the records to establish a preconceived plan for the project. It was not clear to me why the City of
Ashland would spend all this time and money to develop private property for my neighbors. Our
project experience with Ashland has been difficult and expensive, so I wondered why Croman's
owners allowed their project to be handled by the city.
The project looks exh'emely expensive and the area involved far exceeds Croman propelty. I
presume the City will someday reap revenues fi'om crowded in-fill development. (Hopefully, it
turns out better than our Fiber Network venture). The landowners, on the other hand, finally were
able to break up the only large industrial zoned land in town and with Ashland Planners help
establish housing in their plans which flatly was denied previously when the owners applied.
From the negative attitude Ashland has shmvn toward large manufacturing and what it brings to
an area, I'm afraid any business of value would waste little time once they saw what they had to
confront. So I agree there is little chance to develop large industly in Ashland.
Our developments have kept a few older businesses from leaving by supplying them with
expansion buildings. Like our company, they are established in Ashland and a move would be
costly. In the 70's and 80ls, when we came to town, we were welcomed like the town cared that
we chose Ashland. Those were different times, and most of us are still here.
I doubt that many of the commissioners know of me or our family printing company on Tolman
Creek Rd. Over the 40 years we have been in Ashland we have quietly gone about our business
creating jobs, training employees, expanding our own business and slowly developing our 13
acres of employment propeliy keeping much needed service and manufacturing jobs in Ashland.
This has been done without grants or special treatment fi.-om any govemment entities. Quite to
the contrmy, we have payed dearly for fees and assessments along with a major L.l.D.
expenditure when Ashland used the Albertson's development as an excuse to up-grade Hwy. 66
and Tolman Creek Rd. at my and other landowner's expense.
I have explained all this because, although I am leelY of my city developing my neighbor's
property to compete with mine, I am most concerned about the in-fill and if it will cost me
monetarily or degrade my property and location in the process.
I do not want to do anything to cause trouble for the development, but I saw from the last
meeting a few of you realized there could be problems that should be discussed before approval. I
will list the major issues I believe should be fully answered before you breakdown Ashland's
only Industrial zoned propeliy that is in a good location.
1. You should all agree there is no desire to have, or chance to get, a large industrial company to
locate at the Croman site in Ashland.
2. A guarantee should be made that citizens will not have to pay any money, taxes, or bankrofts
to build this project.
3. At no city expense, an accurate cost analysis should be produced, that will be followed, for
infrastructure adequate to handle the biggest possible standards and development at Croman.
4. Hamilton Creek runs through our property and others below Croman. Most people do not
realize our citypipes untreated street stonn water fi'om developments not even attached to these
watelways and uses them as stOlID drains. To build on my land, I have had to produce 100 year
flood plain studies and maps for the city which become meaningless as Ashland pipes water into
Hamilton Creek above me. Fifty acres will create a lot of run off; do not allow it into Hamilton
Creek.
5. When infrashucture is being analyzed, make sure that those of us that may develop after
Croman will still have adequate water, sewer, and utilities at our locations. Through the years we
have made underground improvements anticipating fuhlre development. Those improvements
must not be lost during this project.
6. Thus far I have been completely ignored about a major flaw in the Croman design. As I see it,
bringing any more traffic onto Tolman Creek Rd. is disastrous, especially converging at a
railroad crossing on a street with no right hun lane at the intersection on Ashland St. If the
development ever happens, there will be a steady line of traffic all day. Before I go any further,
please note I will not give up any property frontage and will never pay another L.I.D. charge on
that road.
There is a simple solution that no one in charge of this project will consider. That is to create a
complete ingress/egress interchange on Siskiyou Blvd. and 1-5.
After I was ignored by City Planners, I called 0.0.0. T. and the gentleman I phoned said it was
an interesting idea and that he'd mention it to his superiors. Next year, exit 14 will be re-
vamped. Why not ask for some stimulus money and drastically improve traffic flow to and from
our town.
Not only will the Croman Plan min any movement along Tolman, but once traffic finally gets to
1-5, there is an inadequate 2-lane road you would be pushing all the traffic into. Siskiyou Blvd. is
an open road to work with compared to the mess your plan offers.
If Siskiyou would be considered, I would hope that the rural atmosphere would be maintained for
those who reside along that road. From what I envision, I see space for some expansion and
possibly the winery and some locations may find the change beneficial. I tl1lly hope this idea
causes no grief for any land owners in that area, but until this traffic issue is resolved, the
Croman development should be put on hold.
That's my "feedback". I wish someone would consider my concerns. I know my area well or I
would not spend my time bringing these issues to your attention. To my knowledge I've heard
none ofthese items discussed, so I consider them ignored. If there's a reason, set me straight so I
can shut up like evelyone else seems to be doing.
Sincerely,
Zach Brombacher
IPCO Development
640 Tolman Creek Rd.
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-4711
Memo
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Date: Janumy 25,2010
From: Colin Swales, Transportation Commission Chair
To: Plamung Commission
Re: Transportation Comments on Croman Plan
The Transportation Conmussion held their regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, Janumy
21, 2010. A discussion of the transportation-related elements of the Croman Plan was on the
agenda. Brandon Goldman, Senior Plamler and Mike Faught, Public Works director were in
attendance to present details of the plans and answer questions.
The Planning Department, after having noted some of the Commission's previous concems over
possible future modifications of the street design as it relates to subsequent review and/or
adoption of the Transportation System Plan, had already revised the proposed draft of Chapter
18.53.020 relating to Minor Amendments. The Commission was in favor of these revisions and
looked forward to reviewing the street design as part of the upcoming TSP update process.
After the presentation, discussion and deliberations were held, the following motion was made:
Commission recommends to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the final design
of Central Boulevard be reviewed by the Transportation Commission before it is finalized and
constmcted. The motion passed unanimously.
RECEIVED
JAM 2 5 2OtO
City of Ashland
Community DoVoL.ipment
ENGINEERING DIVISION Tel: 541/488-5347
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541f488-6006
Ashland OR 97520 TTY: BOOn35--2900
WlfN.ashland.Of.US
G:\pub-'M1Isloogldept-adminITransportation CommisslonlCroman Plan Response to PC 1 2210.doc
r.t. ,
To: Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners and City Administrator
From: Marilyn Briggs (Please enter as testimony)
Regarding: Croman Propelty Proposal
January] 5, 2010
I urge the denial of the existing Croman Property Proposal for the following reasons:
1. It makes a mockery of all our touted eft arts at "sustainability" and "infill".
· It reverses an earlier Planning Commission decision that was unanimously for
keeping ALL the Croman Property in a light industrial zone. About five years ago,
when "Mac" was head of the Planning Depmtment and I was still serving my eight year
appointment on the Planning Commission, an extensive survey was made for alternative
sites for industrial zoning. THERE \\'ERE NONE within our stated goals oflivability_
· It makes no sense to extend and fragment our core communities of housing and
commercial zones when there is an excess of existing vacant properties within the
core. Our administrators tout the theme of "sustain ability"; this proposal negates it.
2. It is not a "vVELCOME TO OUR C01'vll\.1UNITY" doctu11ent.
· It disrespects existing property ownersJbusinesses by ovedaying their properties
with new regulations and running roads through existing buildings.
· It negates our goal of establishing family-wage jobs---it contains ordinances that
make it fmancia11y difficult for business to \VANT to locate here
3. The Portland arch.itectural consultants who devised this "MIXED USE" concept,
proceeded with blatant disregard tor public input. Yes, there were public meetings, three
at the Hotel which showcased, repetitively, handsome projects they did in other cities. But
they didn't take audience suggestions. I had to ask them to take a survey of what the
audience wanted. They left doing that up to us, which our current Mayor and I tabulated
ourselves. P.nd during the initial project presentation at the Grange, questions and
suggestions trom the local audience were passed over. Any infatuation with out-of-town
consultants who disregard our own stated goals is not tenable.
4. The property owners are probably happy with this existing proposal because they
surely want to move ahead. But it would be shOIt sighted to aim for any quick build-out
that fi'actures our own GOALS of good land use plalUung.
5. Suggestions.
· Ol'-m ZONE, light industrial. Apart fl-om negating the "infiII" goal, any
cOl1illlercial/living quarters could provoke conflicts about noise, odors or traffic that
the industrial facilities might make They are totally incompatible with the goal of
providing infrastmcture for family-wage job oPPol1unies.
< '5pue.. bill./< ~A. O(uR'T~ ,-~...Q.. - RECEIVED
JAM \ 9 2OlO
City of Ashland
eommunity DevelopmGl'lt
ei-~