HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-12 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give 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
March 12, 2019
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
IV.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. February 12, 2019 Regular Meeting
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2018-00006, 476 N Laurel
VII. UPDATES
A. Croman Mill District
B. State Legislative updates regarding Housing
VIII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX.ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). 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).
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - Draft
February 12, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Alan Harper Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Stefani Seffinger, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced Councilor Stefani Seffinger was the new council liaison to the
Planning Commission. The City Council would discuss the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Croman South
property owner at their meeting February 19, 2019. The Commission discussed council liaison participation during
commission meetings.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES - None
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1. January 8, 2019 Regular Meeting
2. January 22, 2019 Study Session
Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC FORUM - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS None
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2018-00006
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 476 N Laurel Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Clover Living Trust; Dave Clover, Trustee; Dorothy Clover, Trustee/ KDA Homes, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for a 12-unit Cottage Housing development and a
Performance Standards Subdivision Outline Plan for a 13-lot subdivision located at 476 Laurel St. The
application includes an Exception to the Street Standards to either install a curbside sidewalk or to reduce
the required parkrow width to 3.7 feet on the Mountain View Dr. frontage of 478 Laurel St. The application
Ashland Planning Commission
February 12, 2019
Page 1 of 2
and a
buildings located at 476 Laurel St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential
ZONING: R-1-
Chair Pearce explained the public hearing occurred at the meeting January 9, 2019. There was a request to
leave the record open. The record was left open for a three-week period. The public hearing was closed. The
record closed January 29, 2019. The Commission would deliberate and make a decision at this meeting.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Harper disclosed an ex parte contact with a citizen who had suggested there be fewer units and more
parking on the site. It would not influence his ability to make an impartial decision. The remaining Commission had no
ex parte on the matter.
Deliberations & Decision
The Commission discussed the possibility of widening the street width on Mountain View Drive. The street complied with
city standards and the street width calmed traffic. Commission majority supported retaining the current street width.
They went on to discuss the frontage on 478 Laurel Street. There was 8.7 feet of space between the property line and
the curb line. It would either be a 5--foot 7-inch park
row with smaller trees. There was a street tree list for 4-foot wide park rows. The park row would transition from the
driveway to a full park row.
The Commission discussed a suggestion to install a pedestrian path out to Laurel Street for better access to
guest parking. Commission majority thought the path could invite security issues at night and possibly create a
troublesome place in the neighborhood.
The applicants would allow draining from all the lots into their drainage system.
Commissioners Harper/Brown m/s to approve PA-T2-2018-00006 pursuant to the staff report recommendations
and Conditions. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Brown noted this was the first housing project of this size. They
needed to see how it developed. It fit with the neighborhood. Chair Pearce appreciated the public testimony on the
matter. Although ensuring compatibility was not a land use criterion, it was a legitimate concern. It would be a legislative
issue for the Council going forward as the City increased density. Commissioner Dawkins agreed. Commissioner
Harper added compatibility spoke to 2 and three stories. He was more concerned when the rest of the area developed.
Commissioner Thompson spoke to the public concern the ordinance did not provide adequate parking. She thought the
compatibility statement at the outset of that ordinance was legislative rationale to support the adoption of the ordinance.
It was not land use criteria and would not provide a legal basis for the Commission to deny approval if the project
complied with the specifics of the ordinance. When the City Council adopted the ordinance, they found that it was
consistent with the neighborhood. This project met the criteria of the ordinance. Imposing parking would require a
Variance and Exceptions. Commissioner Norton added a lot of thought went into the ordinance. When they were
developing the ordinance, there was little public involvement. It would have added benefit to hear public concerns during
that time. If they had to refine the ordinance in the future, the Commission could review the comments made on this
project. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Norton, Dawkins, Harper, Thompson, Brown, and Pearce, YES.
Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
February 12, 2019
Page 2 of 2
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 12, 2019
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2018-00006, A REQUEST FOR )
OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS FOR A )
12-UNIT/13-LOT COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 476 NORTH )
LAUREL STREET. THE APPLICANTION ALSO REQUESTS AN EXCEPTION TO )
THE STREET STANDARDS TO EITHER INSTALL A CURBSIDE SIDEWALK OR )
TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKROW WIDTH TO 3.7 FEET ON THE MOUN- )
FINDINGS,
TAIN VIEW DRIVE FRONTAGE OF 478 NORTH LAUREL STREET; A TREE RE- )
CONCLUSIONS &
MOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE TWO SIGNIFICANT TREES A 12-INCH APPLE )
ORDERS
AND A 12-INCH WALNUT; AND A DEMOLITION REVIEW PERMIT TO DEMOL- )
ISH THE EXISTING HOME AND TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. )
)
OWNER/APPLICANT:
DAVE CLOVER FORCLOVER LIVING TRUST/ )
KDA HOMES, LLC )
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #8800 of Map 39 1E 04CB is located at 476 North Laurel Street and is zoned Single Family
Residential (R-1-5).
2) The applicant is requesting Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals for a 12-
unit/13-lot Cottage Housing development located at 476 North Laurel Street. The application includes
requests for an Exception to the Street Standards to either install a curbside sidewalk or to reduce the
required parkrow width to 3.7 feet on the Mountain View Drive frontage of 478 North Laurel Street; a
Tree Removal Permit to remove two significant trees: a 12-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Apple tree
and a 12-inch dbh Walnut tree; and a Demolition Review Permit to demolish the existing home and two
accessory buildings. The applicant proposes that all cottages be built to Earth Advantage® Platinum/Net
Zero standards, with solar panels installed during initial construction so that each cottage can produce at
least as much energy as it consumes. In addition, one of the open space areas proposed is to be a pollinator
garden where the use of pesticides will be restricted, and the applicant also indicates that the Cottage
Housing development is designed for Life Long Housing® certification to better enable residents to age
in place. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3
3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in as follows:
a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate
transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 1
c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large
trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant
features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown
in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or
provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher
ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
AMC 18.5.2.050
4) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows:
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone
(part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density
and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public
Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve
exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either
subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development
and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the
proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact
adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of
the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would
alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site
Development and Design Standards.
AMC 18.2.3.090
5) The development standards for Cottage Housing standards are detailed in as
follows:
C. Development Standards. Cottage housing developments shall meet all of the following
requirements.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 2
1.Cottage Housing Density. The permitted number of units and minimum lot areas shall be
as follows:
Table 18.2.3.090.C.1 Cottage Housing Development Density
Minimum Maximum Minimum lot
Maximum
number of number of size
Maximum Floor
cottages per cottages per (accommodates
Zones Cottage Area
cottage cottage minimum
Density Ratio
housing housing number of
(FAR)
development development cottages)
1 cottage
R-1-5, dwelling unit
NN-1-5 per 2,500 3 12 7,500 sq.ft. 0.35
NM-R-1-5 square feet of
lot area
1 cottage
dwelling unit
R-1-7.5
per 3,750 3 12 11,250 sq.ft. 0.35
NM-R-1-7.5
square feet of
lot area
2. Building and Site Design.
a. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The combined gross floor area of all cottages and
garages shall not exceed a 0.35 floor area ratio (FAR). Structures such as parking
carports, green houses, and common accessory structures are exempt from the
maximum floor area calculation.
b. Maximum Floor Area. The maximum gross habitable floor area for 75 percent or
more of the cottages, within developments of four units or greater, shall be 800
square feet or less per unit. At least two of the cottages within three unit cottage
housing developments shall have a gross habitable floor area of 800 square feet or
less. The gross habitable floor area for any individual cottage unit shall not exceed
1000 square feet.
c. Height. Building height of all structures shall not exceed 18 feet. The ridge of a
pitched roof may extend up to 25 feet above grade.
d. Lot Coverage. Lot coverage shall meet the requirements of the underlying zone
outlined in Table 18.2.5.030.A.
e. Building Separation. A cottage development may include two-unit attached, as
well as detached, cottages. With the exception of attached units, a minimum
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 3
separation of six feet measured from the nearest point of the exterior walls is
required between cottage housing units. Accessory buildings (e.g., carport, garage,
shed, multipurpose room) shall comply with building code requirements for
separation from non-residential structures.
f. Fences. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18.4.4.060, fence height is
limited to four feet on interior areas adjacent to open space except as allowed for
deer fencing in subsection 18.4.4.060.B.6. Fences in the front and side yards
abutting a public street, and on the perimeter of the development shall meet the
fence standards of section 18.4.4.060.
3.Access, Circulation, and Off-Street Parking Requirements. Notwithstanding the
provisions of chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and 18.4 Site
Development and Site Design Standards, cottage housing developments are subject
to the following requirements:
a.Public Street Dedications. Except for those street connections identified on the
Street Dedication Map, the Commission may reduce or waive the requirement to
dedicate and construct a public street as required in 18.4.6.040 upon finding that
the cottage housing development meets connectivity and block length standards by
providing public access for pedestrians and bicyclists with an alley, shared street,
or multi-use path connecting the public street to adjoining properties.
b.Driveways and parking areas. Driveway and parking areas shall meet the vehicle
area design standards of section 18.4.3.
i. Parking shall meet the minimum parking ratios per 18.4.3.040.
ii. Parking shall be consolidated to minimize the number of parking areas, and
shall be located on the cottage housing development property.
iii. Off-street parking can be located within an accessory structure such as a
multi-auto carport or garage, but such multi-auto structures shall not be
attached to individual cottages. Single-car garages and carports may be
attached to individual cottages. Uncovered parking is also permitted
provided that off street parking is screened in accordance with the
applicable landscape and screening standards of chapter 18.4.4.
4. Open Space. Open space shall meet all of the following standards.
a. A minimum of 20 percent of the total lot area is required as open space.
b. Open space(s) shall have no dimension that is less than 20 feet unless otherwise
granted an exception by the hearing authority. Connections between separated
open spaces, not meeting this dimensional requirement, shall not contribute toward
meeting the minimum open space area.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 4
c. Shall consist of a central space, or series of interconnected spaces.
d. Physically constrained areas such as wetlands or steep slopes cannot be counted
towards the open space requirement.
e. At least 50 percent of the cottage units shall abut an open space.
f. The open space shall be distinguished from the private outdoor areas with a
walkway, fencing, landscaping, berm, or similar method to provide a visual boundary
around the perimeter of the common area.
g. Parking areas and driveways do not qualify as open space.
Figure 18.2.3.090 Cottage Housing Conceptual Site Plans
5. Private Outdoor Area. Each residential unit in a cottage housing development shall
have a private outdoor area. Private outdoor areas shall be separate from the open
space to create a sense of separate ownership.
a. Each cottage unit shall be provided with a minimum of 200 square feet of usable
private outdoor area. Private outdoor areas may include gardening areas, patios, or
porches.
b. No dimension of the private outdoor area shall be less than 8 feet.
6. Common Buildings, Existing Nonconforming Structures and Accessory Residential
Units.
a. Common Buildings. Up to 25 percent of the required common open space, but no
greater than 1,500 square feet, may be utilized as a community building for the sole
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 5
use of the cottage housing residents. Common buildings shall not be attached to
cottages.
b. Carports and garage structures. Consolidated carports or garage structures,
provided per 18.2.3.090.C.3.b, are not subject to the area limitations for common
buildings.
c. Nonconforming Dwelling Units. An existing single-family residential structure built
prior to the effective date of this ordinance (date), which may be nonconforming with
respect to the standards of this chapter, shall be permitted to remain. Existing
nonconforming dwelling units shall be included in the maximum permitted cottage
density. 1,000 square feet of the habitable floor area of such nonconforming
dwellings shall be included in the maximum floor area permitted per
18.2.3.090C.2.a. Existing garages, other existing non-habitable floor area, and the
not be included in the maximum floor area ratio.
d. Accessory Residential Units. New accessory residential units (ARUs) are not
permitted in cottage housing developments, except that an existing ARU that is
accessory to an existing nonconforming single-family structure may be counted as
a cottage unit if the property is developed subject to the provisions of this chapter.
7. Storm Water and Low-Impact Development.
a. Developments shall include open space and landscaped features as a component
filtration and on-site infiltration of storm water.
b. Low impact development techniques for storm water management shall be used
wherever possible. Such techniques may include the use of porous solid surfaces
in parking areas and walkways, directing roof drains and parking lot runoff to
landscape beds, green or living roofs, and rain barrels.
c. Cottages shall be located to maximize the infiltration of storm water run-off. In this
zone, cottages shall be grouped and parking areas shall be located to preserve as
much contiguous, permanently undeveloped open space and native vegetation as
reasonably possible when considering all standards in this chapter.
8. Restrictions.
a. The size of a cottage dwelling may not be increased beyond the maximum floor area
in subsection 18.2.3.090.C.2.a. A deed restriction shall be placed on the property
notifying future property owners of the size restriction.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 6
AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1
6) The approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are detailed in as
follows:
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the
following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling
along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking
along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection
18.4.6.040.A.
AMC 18.5.7.040.B
7) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in as follows:
1.Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that
the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition
of conditions.
a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear
public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable
danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger
cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of
hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant
to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the
permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted
if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made
to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to
applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and
Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 7
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow
of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species 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.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would
lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other
provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval
pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval
of the permit.
AMC 15.04.216
8) The criteria for a Demolition or Relocation Review Permit are detailed in as
follows:
A. For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of the
application:
1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a or b apply:
a. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically
beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial
use can be made of the property, the Demolition Review committee may require the
applicant to:
(i) Furnish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer,
or appraiser, or other person who is experienced in rehabilitation of
buildings that addresses the estimated market value of the property on
which the building lies, both before and after demolition or removal, or
(ii) Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the Demolition
Review Committee or by advertising the property in the Ashland Daily
Tidings and Medford Mail Tribune at least eight times and at regular
intervals for at least 90 days and by posting a for sale sign on the property,
four to six square feet in size and clearly visible from the street, for the same
90 day period.
b. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the
owner to properly maintain the structure.
2. In addition to subparagraphs a or b above, the applicant must also:
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 8
a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for replacement or rebuilt
structure for the structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt
structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being
demolished or relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than
1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet.
The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance
and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is
required, however, if:
(i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a
finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the
neighborhood than redevelopment would, or
(ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable accessory
structure.
b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be
practicably relocated to another site.
3. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan:
a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site
review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as
provided in section 15.04.216.A.2.
b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until
the building permit has been issued for the replacement or rebuilt structure, unless
the site is restricted to open spaces uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2.
4. The Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to post with the City a bond,
or other suitable collateral as determined by the City administrator, ensuring the safe
demolition of the structure and the completed performance of the redevelopment plan.
9) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 8, 2019
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Prior to the closing of the hearing,
participants requested that the hearing or record remain open pursuant to ORS 197.763(6) to present
additional evidence or argument. The Planning Commission closed the hearing, but left the record open to
the submittal of new evidence until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 2019; to the submittal of responses to the new
submittals until 4:30 p.m. on January 22, 2019; and to the submittal of written arguments, but no new
evidence, by the applicant only until 4:30 p.m. on January 29, 2019. The meeting was continued for Planning
Commission deliberations until 7:00 p.m. on February 12, 2019 at the City Council Chambers at which time
the Planning Commission reconvened and after consideration of the materials received, approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 9
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan approval, Site Design Review
approval, Cottage Housing, Exception to Street Standards, Tree Removal Permit and Demolition Review
meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3; for Site Design
Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050; for a Cottage Housing Development described AMC 18.2.3.090;
for an Exception to Street Standards described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1; for a Tree Removal Permit as
described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B; and for a Demolition Review Permit described in AMC 15.04.216.
2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline
Plan approval.
The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that,
ordinance requirements of the CityCommission finds that the proposal meets all applicable
ordinance requirements, is requesting no Variances and only a single Exception to the Street Standards
(discussed further below), and that this criterion has been satisfied.
Adequate key City facilities can be
provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will
Staff have noted the following based on
discussions with city utility departments:
Water, Sewer, Electricity and Urban Storm Drainage
Water The Public Works Department has indicated that the property is currently served by a four-
inch water main in North Laurel Street and a six-inch water main in Mountain View Drive. Water
meters are illustrated being placed at the sidewalk off of both mains, with lines generally extending
within the setback areas at the perimeter of the site to serve the proposed cottages. The Public Works
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 10
Department has indicated that the existing lines have the ability to provide capacity for the proposed
development.
Sanitary Sewer - The Public Works Department has indicated that property is currently served by a
six-inch sanitary sewer main in North Laurel Street and an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in Mountain
View Drive, and that an 18-inch line picks up at the end of the six-inch line at Laurel and Otis. Public
provide for future improvements as necessary in the future, and that the Wastewater Treatment Plan
has capacity to tr. The conceptual utility plan proposes to connect
to the sewer main in Mountain View Drive and extend a sewer line under the parking lot into the
center of the property to provide connections for the cottages.
Electricity The application proposes to connect to existing power on the north side of Mountain
View Drive and along North Laurel Street, with a new secondary power transformer and meter bank
to be installed at the southwest corner of the parking lot, and a new street light west of the driveway
on Mountain View Drive. All existing overhead lines are to be converted to underground, with
overhead connections abandoned.
Urban Storm Drainage - The Public Works Department has indicated that the property is currently
served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in Mountain View Drive. The conceptual utility plan provided
also notes an existing 12-inch storm sewer main in North Laurel Street. The plan illustrates storm
water quality bio-swales at the southwest corner of the parking lot and within the parkrow planting
strip along Mountain View Drive, with proposed storm water facility ponds illustrated on the north
side of the proposed parking lot. All storm drainage is illustrated as entering the city system through
a proposed outlet control structure just west of the driveway off of Mountain View Drive. The
application indicated that the applicant will provide an on-site storm water detention facility capable
of accommodating a 25-year storm event as required by adopted regional standards. The Engineering
Division has indicated that based on the conceptual plan which illustrates two water quality swales,
two detention ponds, and the entire parking area constructed in porous paving to provide additional
detention, City stormwater requirements will be satisfied. In addition, the applicant has agreed to
provide a drainage easement and install a storm drain pipe under city permit at their cost with the
initial site infrastructure to provide neighbors with the option of connecting -
expense - their storm water drains to the provided pipe to resolved surrounding drainage issues.
Conditions have been included below requiring that final utility, grading and drainage plans and
associated civil engineering drawings be provided for review and approval with the Final Plan
application.
Police & Fire Protection
Existing fire hydrants are in place at the southwest corner of the subject property, along North Laurel
Street, and at the northeast corner of the site, across Mountain View Drive. The Fire Marshal has
noted that he will review the civil drawings and building permit submittals for compliance with fire
codes relative to water supply and fire apparatus access, but he has further indicated that there are
two routes available to provide fire protection to the site via existing, improved public streets and he
sees no obvious red flag issues which would pose significant concerns with the proposal. Based on
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 11
comments from the Fire Marshal, a condition has been included below to require that the applicants
address the requirements of the Fire Department including but not limited to approved addressing,
fire apparatus access, fire hydrant distance and fire flow, as part of the Final Plan application
submittal.
Paved Access and Adequate Transportation
Compliance with street standards is addressed under the appropriate criterion later in this section.
With regard to paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation, the
application materials include a Traffic Impact Analysis Review prepared by Alex Georgevitch
Consulting.
Transportation Impact Analysis Review
development is likely to generate approximately 88 average daily trips with eight p.m. peak hour trips
and six a.m. peak hour trips. He further notes that if the entire surrounding neighborhood east of the
development were to rely exclusively on Mountain View Drive, there would be a total of 475 daily
trips with 48 p.m. peak hour trips and 35 a.m. peak hour trips, which is well below the 1,500 average
street standards. Georgevitch concludes that the volume of trips to be generated by the proposal is
very low and does not warrant a full traffic impact analysis. He notes that the site is well-served by
multi-modal facilities, with sidewalks either already in place or to be built in conjunction with the
development, on all frontages and continuing to downtown, shopping, schools and the transit corridor
serving Ashland and the rest of the Rogue Valley. He further emphasizes that traffic along Mountain
View Drive will not be adversely impacted by the development, and that even if all homes east of the
development were to rely on Mountain View it would still operate safely and be well within the range
of daily trips considered in the street design standards.
T
Register Professional Engineer Anthony M. Bakke of Construction Engineering Consultants, Inc.
which identifies existing facilities available in the adjacent rights-of-way along with proposed
connections, meter placements, stormwater quality bio-swale and pond placement, and the applicant
recognizes that some upgrades on their part will be necessary and that a final utility plan and associated
civil engineering drawings will be provided with the Final Plan application. The Planning Commission
and through the subject property from the various
public utility easements and street rights-of-way surrounding the site, and that based on the conceptual
plans and details from the various service providers, adequate key city facilities are available within
the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development.
Conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be
provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments in conjunction with
the Final Plan submittal, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and
approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat.
The existing and natural features of the
land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been
identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space,
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 12
common arThe Planning Commission finds that that there are no
significant natural features on the subject property.
The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that,
prevent adjaceThe
Planning Commission finds that the development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed
with the uses envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent properties are largely developed as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The fifth approval criterion is that,
and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early
The Planning
Commission finds that at the time the Final Plan application is submitted,
assurances relative to open space maintenance. The Commission further finds that the common open
space is to be completed during the final stages of construction, but in no case will this extend beyond the
individual occupancy. Conditions requ
plan submittal have been included below. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the
proposal complies with the fifth approval criterion.
The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established
under this chapter
permissible number of cottages for a cottage housing development in the R-1-5 zoning district providing
that one cottage per 2,500 square feet of lot area is allowed, with a maximum number of 12 cottages. The
Planning Commission finds that the 32,492 square foot property here will accommodate 12 cottages
(32,492/2,500 = 12.9968) and 12 are proposed which complies with the allowed Cottage Housing
Development Density. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal complies
with the sixth approval criterion.
The development complies with the Street
Standards.
North Laurel Street
is a residential neighborhood collector street, and city standards envision five-
foot sidewalks, seven-foot parkrow planting strips, a six-inch curb, seven-foot parking bays on each
side, and nine- to ten-foot travel lanes on each side. The city-standard cross-section includes a 22- to
34-foot curb-to-curb paved width within a 49- to 61-foot right-of-way, dependent on the on-street
parking configuration. The existing curb-to-curb paved width along the frontage is 29 to 30 feet, and
the right-of-way width along the corridor varies from 47- to 60-feet. There are curbs, gutters, paving
and curbside sidewalks
installed subject to an Exception to allow curbside sidewalks with the recent Laurel Street LID, as
provided in the Street Design Standards in AMC 18.4.6.040.A.2:
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 13
All streets \[shall
of meandering sidewalks, sidewalks on only one side of the street, or curbside sidewalk segments
instead of setback walks. Exceptions should be allowed when physical conditions exist that preclude
right-of-way when improving streets through a local improvement district (LID).
As part of the current application, the applicant proposes to remove both Laurel Street curb cuts and
replace the disturbed areas of curb and sidewalk to improve the streetscape aesthetics, reduce conflict
points and create two additional on-street parking spaces in the public realm along Laurel Street. Three
street trees are to be planted behind the existing curbside sidewalk, and these will be selected and
irrigated in keeping with city standards.
Mountain View Drive
is a residential neighborhood street, and city standards envision five-foot
sidewalks, seven-foot parkrow planting strips, a six-inch curb and seven-foot parking bays on each
side, with an 11- to 14-foot queuing travel lane. The city standard cross-section includes a 25- to 28-
foot curb-to-curb paved width in a 50- to 55-foot right-of-way.
The existing improvements consist of paving, curb, gutter, and curbside sidewalks on the north side,
-of-way width
varies from 47- to 50-feet and the paved curb-to-curb width is 27-feet 8-inches. Public Works has
indicated that an 8.7-foot right-of-way dedication along the frontage is necessary to provide full right-
of-way width and accommodate the installation of city standard frontage improvements. The applicant
proposes to make this dedication and install the required frontage improvements.
The Commission finds that the existing right-of-way width is consistent with the street standards, and
that the width and presence of parkrows serve to provide neighborhood traffic calming. The
that f
Sidewalk Exception
-
The applicant proposes to install a public sidewalk and parkrow planting strip along their frontage.
Along the adjacent frontage at 478 Laurel Street, there is only 8.7 feet from the curb to the property
line, and as such a standard five-foot sidewalk and seven-foot park row planting strip are not possible;
the applicant requests an Exception to Street Standards to install either a five-foot curbside sidewalk
or to provide a five-foot sidewalk with a reduced 3.7-foot parkrow. An Exception is necessary because
the applicant does not own the property at 478 Laurel Street and as such there is not adequate area
available to install both parkrow and sidewalk to the standards. The sidewalk and parkrow along the
-foot
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 14
sidewalk and full seven-foot park row planting strip with irrigated street trees, and the applicant will
dedicate the necessary right-of-way to the City to fully comply with street standards along their
frontage and an approximately 100-foot long, 8.7-foot wide remnant strip along the frontage of 478
Laurel Street as well.
The Planning Commission finds that an Exception is both necessary and merited here because of the
demonstrable difficulty due to unique aspect of the site. The applicant would not normally be required
-
improvement. The Commission finds that the appropriate Exception, as recommended by staff, is to
provide the standard five-foot sidewalk with a reduced 3.7 foot parkrow width as this will provide
equal transportation facilities and connectivity and is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty
posed by the limited available area. Trees planted behind a curbside sidewalk would likely adversely
, and in order to accommodate street
trees within the reduced park row planting strip width, staff have recommended and the applicant has
agreed to conditions requiring: 1) that irr
in the Recommended Street Trees guide and planted at a spacing of one per 30- to 50-feet within this
reduced parkrow; and 2) that the sidewalk design in this section incorporate a means for channeling
roots under pavement such as using two-foot diameter porous or perforated drain pipe half-filled with
loose top soil and slow release fertilizer, one-inch thick aeration or drainage pads installed vertically
beneath the sidewalk, or any other Tree Commission-approved alternative to increase the effective
root zone beyond the narrow park row planting strip. A condition to this effect has been included
below, and the applicant will be able to present any proposed alternative to the Tree Commission with
their Final Plan application. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the
conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the street standards with the exception of the section
of Mountain View Drive sidewalk adjacent to 478 North Laurel Street, for which the requested
Exception to allow a narrower than standard parkrow with for an approximately 100-foot section along
Mountain View Drive is merited.
The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the
proposal complies with the requirements for Outline Plan subdivision approval under the Performance
Standards Options chapter.
2.4 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site
Design Review approval.
The first approval criterion addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring that, The
proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including
but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot
coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable sThe
Planning Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have
been evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of
the underlying R-1-5 zoning will be satisfied.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 15
The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies
The Planning Commission finds that the
property is within the Performance Standards Option (PSO) overlay zone, which requires that all
developments other than partitions or individual dwelling units be processed under Chapter 18.3.9.,
and that the proposal involves a 12-unit cottage housing development and 13-lot subdivision for which
the applicant has requested Outline Plan approval under the PSO-Overlay chapter 18.3.9. The
Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied.
The proposal
complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the
applicable Site Development and Design Standards including provisions for access management,
building orientation, parking configuration, etc. and that the various plans have been prepared based
on these standards and the recently adopted Cottage Housing ordinance. With regard to the parking
requirements in AMC 18.4.3, cottage housing units less than 800 square feet require one off-street
parking space be provided per unit. The applicant proposes to provide 12 off-street parking spaces for
the 12 proposed units here. In addition, there are three on-
Laurel Street frontage, five along its Mountain View Drive frontage, and an additional three along the
frontage adjacent to 478 Laurel Street. No on-street parking credits are requested. Bicycle parking is
-sized eaves, in covered alcoves and in a centralized bicycle barn
in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.070.C.1. The Planning Commission finds that all
required off-street parking has been provided on site. The Planning Commission concludes that the
third criterion has been satisfied.
The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, The proposal
complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity
of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout
The
Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout
the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property, and that
these items are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan discussion in section 2.3 above. The
Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not include any Exceptions
to the Site Development and Design Standards, and as such this criterion does not apply.
The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the
proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable standards
specific to Cottage Housing Development.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 16
The Planning Commission finds that the project has been modeled after the examples illustrated in the
recently adopted Cottage Housing ordinance (#3147). Half of the units being attached creates a similar
mass when compared to the surrounding neighborhood which is generally an eclectic mix of styles
and volumes, and provides a variety of housing that not only attempts to protect neighborhood views
and privacy, but also provides opportunities for ownership of small, detached and semi-attached single
family dwellings for a population diverse in age, income and household size.
The Planning Commission finds that other than an Exception to Street Standards discussed in section
2.3 above, no design standard Exceptions or Variances are proposed. The proposal complies with the
allowed development density, floor area ratio, height and lot coverage standards, with 12 cottages
proposed for a ¾-acre parcel and a combined floor area ratio of 0.28. All of the proposed cottages are
less than 800 square feet in gross habitable floor area, with a combined average floor area of 767 square
feet. All of the units are proposed at no more than 14 feet from finished grade to roof peak, where the
cottage housing standards allow roof peaks up to 25 feet from grade. Lot coverage is noted at 49.3
percent, including the allowance for an addition 200 square feet for porous solid surfaces. The parking
lot and a large section of private walkways are to be constructed with porous concrete.
The Commission further finds that building separations are equal or greater than the six-foot minimum
for cottages, and the proposed carports, trash enclosure and bike parking areas are separated from the
cottages with the closest point being nine feet, in compliance with building codes.
No fencing has been identified in the current proposal, and the Commission finds that any fencing will
be detailed in the Final Plan submittal and demonstrated to comply with the limitations of the fence
code and will not exceed four feet on interior areas adjacent to open space. A condition has been
included below to requires that t
The Commission finds that the proposed cottage housing development is within an established
neighborhood with the majority of streets fully improved with the exception of the sidewalks along
the Mountain View Drive frontage of the subject property and the neighboring property immediately
to the west. The applicant proposes to fully upgrade these sections of Mountain View Drive with
sidewalks, planting strips and street trees, with the necessary right-of-way dedicated to the city at the
to 478 North Laurel Street and the installation of standards sidewalks and a narrow parkrow along this
section, as well.
The Commission finds that the driveway and parking area proposed meet the vehicle area design
standards in AMC 18.4.3. 50 percent of the spaces are to be compact while 50 percent will be standard
sized, and all are to have the minimum required back-up dimension of 22 feet. All spaces are to include
wheel stops, striping, and will be appropriately surfaced.
The Commissioner further finds that the proposal meets the off-street parking requirements of AMC
18.4.3.040, providing 12 spaces for the 12 cottages in a single, consolidated parking area. Parking is
to be provided in carports on each side of the drive aisle. Additional on-street parking exists, with five
ntage, three spaces along its Laurel Street
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 17
frontage, and four spaces along the Laurel Street frontage proposed to be improved adjacent to 478
North Laurel Street, however the proposal fully addresses the required parking on-site, and no on-
street parking credits are required or requested.
The Planning Commission finds that 21½ percent of the site is proposed in open space, where a
minimum of 20 percent is required. The proposed open space is in the center of the property and no
dimension is less than 20 feet. The proposed open space consists of a central open space
interconnected with an adjacent open space, each with its own recreational purpose. The central open
space includes a turf area surrounded by plants and flowers intended to support small gatherings or
light activities. A pollinator garden area is proposed to the west of the central open space. Nine of the
12 units directly abuts the open space, and the open space is distinguished from private outdoor areas
with a walkway, landscaping and short fencing to provide a visual boundary. Private open space areas,
separate from the common open space, include large porches, planter beds and smaller rear yards to
provide the requisite private outdoor areas.
The Commission finds that the development proposes multiple storm water infiltration areas (bio-
swales) withi
lot is to be constructed of porous concrete to provide storm water percolation, including inlets from
g consolidated, to preserve as much
contiguous open space as reasonably possible.
The Planning Commission finds that the purpose and intent statement in to
encourage innovative site planning and variety in housing while ensuring compatibility with
is not a specific approval criterion but rather the legislative rationale for
adopting the chapter, and further finds that the standards detailed were intended to achieve
compatibility with established neighborhoods by allowing a greater number of smaller, well-designed
units rather than requiring units be of a comparable size to surrounding homes for the sake of
compatibility.
Based on the foregoing, The Planning Commission concludes that, as detailed above and with the
conditions discussed, the proposal is consistent with the Specific Cottage Housing Development
Standards.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that there are four trees on the property: a ten-inch Apple, a 12-
inch Apple, a ten-inch Cypress and a 12-inch Walnut. All four trees are proposed for removal as part of
the application. In addition, the application explains that a 50-inch Ash tree in the front yard was removed
house, neighboring properties and pedestrians on the Laurel Street sidewalk.
The Planning Commission finds that with regard to the removal of the 50-inch Ash tree in September
of 2018, at that time the property was residentially-zoned and occupied only by a single family
detached dwelling and associated accessory structures and as such would have been exempt from Tree
Removal Permit requirements. With the demolition of the single family detached dwelling now
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 18
proposed, the current removals are considered in light of AMC 18.5.7.020.B.3 wherein the removal of
significant trees from vacant R-1 property requires a Tree Removal Permit. Tree Removal Permits are
required to remove the 12-inch diameter Apple and the 12-inch diameter Walnut which are considered
at breast height or greater.
The tree is proposed for removal in order to
permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4
The Planning Commission finds that all
four trees are unhealthy due to a lack of recent irrigation, pruning and deer-rutting attributable to the
long-term vacancy of the property. The Commission further finds that the trees are located in such a
way that their removals are necessary to accommodate placement of cottages around a central open
space as sought in the Cottage Housing standards and the placement of a single, consolidated parking
area accessed from a lesser order street sought both through the Cottage Housing standards and in
Transportation Element Policies #16, which ccarrying capacity, safety and
driveway and curb cut consolidation or reduction, which design that combines
multiple driveway accesses to a single point in residential Based on
the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the first criterion has been met.
The second approval criterion is that,
on erosion, soil stability, fl
The Commission finds that the removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Three of the four
trees to be removed are between eight and 15 feet in height and do not provide any windbreak while
the fourth, the 12-inch Walnut recently lost one of its limbs in a windstorm. The Commission
concludes that the second criterion is satisfied.
The third criterion is that,
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
The
Commission finds that the removal of the trees will have no negative impacts on tree densities, sizes,
canopies or species diversity, and concludes that this criterion is met.
The fourth criterion for approval of a Tree Removal Permit is that,
require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of
alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives
continue to The Commission finds that the
applicant pursued multiple site plan variations, however none of them were ultimately proposed as the
four trees to be removed were noted as being in declining health and their central locations relative to
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 19
site development would have impacted meeting the allowed density and compliance with other
standards. The Commission concludes that the fourth criterion has been satisfied.
The final criterion is that, shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
The Planning Commission finds that two mitigation trees are required, and
further finds that a total of 22 trees and over 300 plants and shrubs are to be planted and irrigated with
the proposal to more than adequately mitigate the requested tree removals. The Commission concludes
that this final criterion has been met.
The Commission notes that the Ashland Tree Commission was unable to convene its regular monthly
meeting for January of 2019 due to a lack of quorum and as such there is no Tree Commission
recommendation. As provided in AMC 2.25.040, the failure of the Tree Commission to make a
recommendation on any individual planning action shall not invalidate that action, and the
Commission would further note that the Tree Commission will have the opportunity to review and
comment on the Final Plan proposal.
The Commission further notes that while no trees are to be retained on the property, tree protection
that trees on neighboring properties will be adequately protected by fencing in place at the property
perimeter, however because the plan does not clearly address the trees on adjacent properties within
15 feet of the property line as required in AMC 18.4.5.030.B.1. staff have recommended that
conditions requiring a Tree Protection Plan addressing any necessary protection for trees on adjacent
properties within 15 feet of the property line be provided with the Final Plan submittal, and that a Tree
Verification Permit be obtained to verify the identification of trees to be removed and the installation
of any requisite tree protection for trees on adjacent properties prior to any site work. These conditions
have been included below.
The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the
proposal complies with the requirements for Tree Protection and for Tree Removal Permits to remove
two trees.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that a Demolition Review Permit is required for the proposed
demolition of the existing house and two outbuildings on the property. The application indicates the
applicant had initially sought to preserve the existing house and relocate it elsewhere on the property with
a new foundation as they have done recently with the old house at 1068 East Main Street, however in
looking into this possibility they determined that the house here had too many structural and systemic
problems to be salvageable and are thus proposing that it be demolished along with the barn and the other
outbuilding on the property. The applicant emphasizes that the demolition will be carried out in keeping
with the Demolition and Relocation Standards in AMC 15.04.216. The Commission notes that Demolition
Review is administered through the Building Division, but requires that the applicant obtain Site Design
Review approval, requested here, for redevelopment of the property as a requirement for Demolition
approval.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 20
The Commission has included conditions recommended by staff that: 1) The applicant obtain a
Demolition Permit from the Building Division, including paying associated fees and obtaining
requisite inspections; and 2) That construction and demolition debris shall be salvaged or recycled in
diversion plan shall be provided for the review and approval of the Building Official in conjunction
with the Demolition Permit application.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals for a 12-unit/13-lot Cottage
Housing development, Exception to the Street Standards, Tree Removal Permit, and Demolition Review
Permit to demolish the existing home and two accessory buildings is supported by evidence contained
within the whole record.
In addition to being the first application under the relatively recently adopted Cottage Housing ordinance,
the application also proposes that all cottages are to be built to Earth Advantage® Platinum/Net Zero
standards, with solar panels installed during initial construction, with the intention that each cottage will
produce at least as much energy as consumes. In addition, one of the open space areas proposed is to be
a pollinator garden where the use of pesticides will be restricted, and the applicant also indicates that the
Cottage Housing development has been designed for Life Long Housing® certification to better enable
residents to age in place. The project considered as a whole is exactly the type of development the
Commission and Council sought to encourage with the Cottage Housing ordinance, and the Commission
believes that the development merits approval.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2018-00006. Further, if any one or more of the conditions
below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2018-00006 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and
subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for
compliance with applicable naming policies.
3.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in
the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for new driveway approaches or any
necessary encroachments.
4.That the parkrow along the Mountain View Drive frontage of 478 North Laurel Street shall be
installed to a 3.7-foot width as proposed by the applicant. Irrigated street trees selected from the
shall be planted at a spacing of one
per 30-50 feet within this reduced parkrow, and the sidewalk design in this section shall incorporate
a means for channeling roots under pavement including but not limited to using 24-inch diameter
porous or perforated drain pipe half-filled with loose top soil and slow release fertilizer, one-inch
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 21
thick aeration or drainage pads installed vertically beneath the sidewalk to increase the effective
roo or another Tree Commission-approved option. The means for
channeling roots under the pavement shall be included in the civil drawings.
5.That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning
Division prior to any site work including excavation, staging or storage of materials, or excavation
permit issuance. The Tree Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the trees to be
removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for trees to be protected on adjacent
properties. Standard tree protection consists of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in
accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030.B. No construction shall occur within the
tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil,
waste, equipment, or parked vehicles.
6.That the Final Plan submittal shall include:
a.Final electric service, utility and civil engineering plans; all civil infrastructure shall be
installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the submittal of the final survey
plat for review and signature.
b.That draft CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and
responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including carports and
parking areas, landscaping, storm water facilities and street trees and their planting strips.
The cottage housing fencing limitations, floor area limitations and the prohibition on
c.The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be
noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be
considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to
penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code.
d.A phasing plan for the completion of the development.
e.Final site lighting details.
f.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the
applicable coverage allowances of the zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building
footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other
than natural landscaping.
g.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, mutual access and
circulation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the Final Plan submittal for
review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments.
h.Final civil engineering plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage,
electric, sidewalk and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering Departments.
i.That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions with the Final Plan
application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public
facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants,
sanitary sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, and storm drainage
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 22
pipes and catch basins. Any required private or public utility easements shall be
delineated on the civil plans.
ii.That the applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including
load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment with the Final Plan
application. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department
prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be
located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas,
while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services
shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase prior to
submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. At the discretion of the
Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service
installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to
installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the
electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric
Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation.
iii.The engineered construction drawings for the proposed street improvements along
Laurel Street (curb cut closure and sidewalk replacement) and Mountain View
Drive (sidewalk and parkrow installation with street trees) shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions with the
Final Plan application, prior to work in the street right-of-way or installation of
improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The Mountain View sidewalks shall be a
minimum of five feet in width with seven-foot landscaped parkrows between the
landscaped parkrow reduced to 3.7 feet along the Mountain View Drive frontage
of 478 North Laurel Street. All frontage improvements, including but not limited
to the sidewalk, irrigated street trees, and street lighting, shall be constructed across
the entire Mountain View frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be constructed to
City of Ashland Street Standards.
iv.The storm drainage plan shall detail the location and final engineering for all storm
drainage improvements associated with the project, and shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building
Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak
flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole,
and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design.
i.A final grading and erosion control plan.
j.A Tree Protection Plan which clearly addresses the trees on the adjacent properties within
15 feet of the property line, and any fencing or other measures necessary for their protection
for trees as required in AMC 18.4.5.030.B.1.
k.A final size- and species-specific landscaping plan including irrigation details and details
of the landscape materials to be planted shall be provided for the review and approval of
the Staff Advisor. Two mitigation tree plantings shall be installed according to the
approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to final approval. New
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 23
landscaping shall comply with the General Fuel Modification Area requirements and shall
not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List adopted by Resolution
#2018-028.
l.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance,
spacing and clearance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, approach, turn-around, and
firefighter access pathway; approved addressing; fire sprinkler and extinguishers as
applicable; limits on fencing and gates which would impair access; and wildfire hazard
area requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire
Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings, and a Fire Prevention and
Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements of AMC
18.3.10.100.A.2. shall be included with the Final Plan submittal.
7.A final survey plat shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor within 12
months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal
of the final subdivision survey plat for review and signature:
a.The final survey plat shall include dedication of the 8.7 feet of additional right of way on
the south side of Mountain View Drive to accommodate city standard street improvements
as proposed by the applicant.
b.The final survey plat shall include a deed restriction notifying future property owners that
the size of a cottage dwelling may not be increased beyond the maximum floor area in
subsection 18.2.3.090.C.2.a. This size limitation shall also be addressed in the
c.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, mutual access, and
fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland
Engineering Division.
d.Right-of-way necessary to accommodate proposed city standard street improvements
including approximately 8.7 feet along the south side of Mountain View Drive shall be
dedicated to the city on the final survey plat. All public improvements including but not
limited to the paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, street trees in irrigated park row planting
strips and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards (subject to approved
Exceptions) under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the
approved plan prior to submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. Laurel
Street driveway curb cuts shall be removed and the curb and sidewalk replaced in these
locations under permit from the Engineering Division. The new curb and sidewalks shall
be installed, inspected and approved prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for
signature.
e.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility installations
and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans prior to
submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature.
f.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved.
The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building,
Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation.
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 24
g.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the
street shall be installed to serve all lots, inspected and approved.
March 12, 2019
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA-T2-2018-00006
March 12, 2019
Page 25
Council Business Meeting
February 19, 2019
Agenda Item
Croman Mill District Memorandum of Understanding
From
Maria Harris Planning Manager
Contact
maria.harris@ashland.or.us (541) 552-2045
SUMMARY
The City Council is being asked to decide whether to participate in a project which would consider the
revision of the Croman Mill District to allow for the development of additional housing units. The project
would be undertaken in collaboration with the owners of the Croman Mill site, Croman Corporation. The
Council directed staff to move forward with developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and scope
of work for further consideration at the March 5, 2018 meeting.
A draft MOU including a preliminary scope of work is attached and was reviewed by the Legal and Public
Works departments. The MOU clarifies work expectations of both the City and Croman Corporation.
Croman Corporation reviewed the MOU and indicated they are in agreement with the project as outlined.
The reason for considering potential amendments to the Croman Mill District is to evaluate allowing the
development of additional housing units. Currently, housing is permitted in limited areas at the northern,
western and southern edges of the plan area. The property owner indicated that the development of
additional housing units will facilitate and finance the construction of the main street and necessary utilities
(e.g., water, sewer, storm drain and electric) to serve the Croman Mill District. Establishing a road
connection to Siskiyou Blvd. would also provide improved access for the trucks involved in the ongoing site
clean-up and reclamation project, as well as jumpstart the development of the larger Croman Mill District
area.
POLICIES, PLANS & GOALS SUPPORTED
The 2015-2017 Council Goals and Objectives include the following goals and objectives related to housing
and employment land.
5.2 Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in.
5.2.a. Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific
incentives for developers to build more affordable housing.
15.2 Evaluate barriers to business startup and expansion.
19.1 Examine Croman Mill District redevelopment plan.
19.4 Create predictable pathways for development of employment land.
The Ashland Comprehensive Plan
opportunities for the total cross-reserving the character and
appearance of the city.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
The Council directed staff to move forward with developing a MOU and preliminary scope of work for further
consideration at the March 5, 2018 meeting.
Page 1 of 5
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Croman Mill Plan Area
1.
The Croman Mill Plan area includes approximately 95 acres. The Croman Mill Plan area is bound by the
railroad right-of-way to the north and east, Tolman Creek Road and Hamilton Creek to the west and Siskiyou
Boulevard to the south (see attached aerial photo).
The majority of the property in the plan area is comprised of the abandoned Croman Mill site (approximately
64 acres), which is the largest, unused parcel of land in the city limits. The nonoperational Croman Mill site
is centrally located in the plan area, between Mistletoe Road and the railroad right-of-way. Approximately
seven acr
growth boundary. This comprises the southerly extent of the Croman Mill Plan area and is immediately to
adjacent Siskiyou Boulevard. Also included within the Croman Mill Plan area, is the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) maintenance yard located south of the intersection of Mistletoe and Tolman Creek,
as well as some additional properties to the west of Mistletoe Road and near the intersection of Siskiyou
Boulevard and Crowson Road area.
The mill site was a former planing and saw mill for 62 years, from 1934 1996. As a result, the area has
limited utilities and infrastructure to support future development. The property contained an abundance of
decommissioned equipment, construction material and piles of debris and organic material. The property
owners began preparing the site for development by clearing the equipment, material and buildings after the
Croman Mill District was adopted by the City in 2010.
2. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
The Croman Mill master planning effort began in December 2007 and the plan was adopted in August 2010.
Concurrent with the adoption of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan in 2010, the City adopted the
2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA), added the Croman Mill Plan designation to the
Comprehensive Plan map, added the Croman Mill District including five zones to the Zoning map and added
Chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District to Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code.
The key elements of the master plan are the preservation of industrial and office use lands, buffering the
neighborhood to the west, mitigating traffic impacts to Tolman Creek Road, the preservation of natural
features (creeks, pond, and wetlands), a central open space element, improving access into the property,
creating a street network incorporating truck, transit, pedestrian and bicycle access, maintaining access to the
railroad and creating a unique identity to improve visibility of area.
Prior to the adoption of the master plan,the Planning Commission denied an application in 2001 to change
the industrial zoning of the mill site to housing and health-care for approximately two-thirds of the 64 acres
and for employment uses for the remaining third of the acreage. In 2007, the City completed the EOA which
projects employment growth for Ashland and identifies the land needed to accommodate the projected
employment growth. Subsequent to the development of the EOA, the City Council identified a goal to
develop a master plan for the Croman Mill site area, and the master planning project was initiated by the
City. The master plan was funded by a state Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant and a
consultant conducted the public workshops and developed a draft plan and design standards.
3. Recent Activities
The property owners began preparing the site for development by clearing the equipment, material and
buildings after the Croman Mill District was adopted in 2010. At the same time, staff worked with an
existing employer in Ashland that considered expanding operations and locating in the Croman Mill District.
The discussions also involved a potential state grant to assist with funding the construction of streets and
Page 2 of 5
utilities. The employer ultimately decided not to move forward. As a result,
forward because the funding was linked to maintaining and expanding jobs in the community.
The adopted master plan identified several priority projects to implement the plan. One of the recommended
implementation projects was analyzing the feasibility of using tax increment financing (TIF) to publicly fund
needed infrastructure (e.g., streets and utilities) and public improvements (e.g., central park, parking
structure). The City completed an urban renewal feasibility study in 2011 that covered the technical issues
pertaining to the feasibility of urban renewal in two study areas. The feasibility study evaluated the East
Ashland Study Area which included the Croman Mill District as well as areas to the north and adjacent to
Ashland St. (see map below). The feasibility study projected tax increment revenues to cover 53% of the
projected infrastructure and public improvement costs for the East Ashland Study Area and identified the
need to supplement TIF funds with other revenue sources.
Figure 1: East Ashland Study Area
In 2012, the property owners began a reclamation process to remove layers of organic material from the
northwest corner of the site in the former log deck area. The reclamation of the log deck area continues and is
projected to be complete in January 2020. Reclamation may also be necessary in other parts of the site and
will likely need to occur prior to development. Finally, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) may require a remediation plan which could involve additional site work.
In 2018, Community Development and City Administration staff had several meetings with the Croman
amount of acreage within the Croman Mill District. Conversations with Mr. Montero centered around
identifying options for jumpstarting private land development and associated public infrastructure installation
(i.e. streets and utilities). Also discussed was the construction of a new public street connection to Siskiyou
Page 3 of 5
Boulevard to address concerns related to the impacts of ongoing site clean-up and reclamation. The ongoing
site clean-up and reclamation activities create dust, noise, track out of debris onto adjoining city streets and
truck traffic impacts at the intersection of Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street.
4. Scope of Work
The MOU includes a preliminary scope of work (pp. 5-6) which includes the following key components.
Establish objectives for mix and types of housing based on needs identified by the City of Ashland
Housing Program, including required affordable housing.
Prepare concept for amending the Croman Mill District zoning designations to allow for an increase
in housing above what is currently permitted. Present concept to the City Council and Planning
Commission.
Update the traffic analysis and buildable lands inventory (BLI) as needed.
Prepare a phasing plan for the construction of the Central Boulevard.
Present potential Croman Mill District amendments and Central Boulevard improvement plan to the
City Council and Planning Commission.
Prepare and submit Croman Mill District amendments and annexation application for the formal
review process. Schedule and hold public hearings at Housing and Transportation commissions.
Schedule and hold public hearings for legislative amendment and annexation request at City Council
and Planning Commission.
If amendments are approved, Croman Corporation submits planning application for housing
development consistent with legislative amendment.
Figure 2: Croman Mill District - Existing Zoning
CźŭǒƩĻ Ќʹ /ƩƚƒğƓ aźƌƌ 5źƭƷƩźĭƷ Ώ 9ǣźƭƷźƓŭ
ƚƓźƓŭ
Page 4 of 5
Task 9 in the preliminary scope of work is a contingency to update the buildable lands inventory (BLI). The
City may be required by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to update
the BLI as part of changing zoning of additional areas from employment to housing. An update of the BLI
would be performed in-house by staff.
Task 8 in the preliminary scope of work will require the expertise of an outside consultant to update of the
traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA that was prepared with the master plan in 2010 will need to be
updated to assess any changes in the projected traffic resulting from a shift from employment uses to
housing. In addition, an updated TIA is required to address the state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
requirements regarding impacts of zone changes to the street network and specifically, any state facilities.
Staff estimates hiring a consultant for task 8 will cost approximately $15,000 to $20,000.
5. Timeline
The approximate timeline for the project is 12 to 18 months. The project would be undertaken in
collaboration with Croman Corporation and Croman Corporation is responsible for significant portions of the
work. As a result, adherence to the timeline would be dependent on both parties, the City and Croman
Corporation.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The fiscal impacts related to the project fall into two categories City staff time and specialized analysis
requiring outside expertise.
Staff estimates between 540 to 660 hours of City staff time is required to complete the preliminary scope of
work include in the MOU. The staff time is approximately equivalent to between $41,000 to $48,000. The
estimate includes staff time from the Community Development, Public Works and Legal departments. The
range of hours and cost of staff time is because of the contingency task for the update of the BLI (task 9), in
the preliminary scope of work.
Outside expertise is required for the update of the TIA (task 8). Staff estimates hiring consultants for task 8
will cost approximately $15,000 to $20,000. negotiate cost sharing with the
Croman Corporation after the scope of work for the TIA update is determined.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the MOU.
ACTIONS, OPTIONS & POTENTIAL MOTIONS
Motion to Approve Participation in a Project to Consider Potential Amendments to the Croman Mill
1.
District
I move to participate in collaboration with Croman Corporation in a project which would consider the revision of
the Croman Mill District and direct the City Administrator to approve the memorandum of understanding.
2. Motion to Decline Participation in a Project to Consider Potential Amendments to the Croman Mill
District
I move to decline participating in a project to consider the revision of the Croman Mill District.
REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Croman Mill District Amendments, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Attachment 2: Croman Mill District Aerial Photo
Attachment 3: Croman Mill District Zoning Map
Attachment 4: Croman Mill District Potential Amendment Areas
Page 5 of 5
CROMAN MILL DISTRICT AMENDMENTS
Memorandum of Understanding
The City of Ashland (hereinafter referred to City and Croman Corporation
(hereinafter referred to aCroman enter into this Memorandum of Understanding
as of ___________________, 2019 This
MOU explains and memorializes the respective goals and expectations of the City and
Croman as they work to bring about a project that substantially benefits both entities.
The specific purpose of this collaboration is to facilitate the construction of the Central
Boulevard to provide improved access to the site and jumpstart the redevelopment of
the Croman Mill Site.
A. Background
The parties acknowledge the following facts.
1. The Croman Mill site was a planing and saw mill for 62 years, from 1934 1996. Lumber
mills are a land intensive use that is industrial in nature and involve large areas of
outdoor storage, primarily shed-like structures and the use of large equipment. As a
result, the mill site included an informal, unpaved network of roads and limited water,
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Page 1 of 7 Croman Mill District Amendments
Community Development Department
February 19, 2018
sewer and electric utilities. Vehicular access to the mill site was and continues to be by
Mistletoe Rd. on the eastern border. Because of the industrial and primarily outdoor use
by the mill, the area has limited infrastructure to support future development.
2. Croman purchased the mill property and assumed control in December 1982. The mill
continued to operate until 1996. At the end of the operations, most of the mill
structures were removed. In 2001, the Planning Commission denied an application to
change the industrial zoning of the mill site to housing and health-care for
approximately two-thirds of the 64 acres and for employment uses for the remaining
third of the acreage.
3. In 2010, the City of Ashland amended its Comprehensive Plan and Land Use
Ordinance with the acknowledgement of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan, a
technical report and supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan, and adoption
of the Croman Mill District, a special district found in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
18.3.10. The Croman Mill District creates a framework for business park that includes
professional offices, manufacturing, open space, neighborhood-oriented businesses
and residential dwelling units.
4. The Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan and AMC 18.3.10 Croman intend to
implement the following project goals and principles acknowledged through the plan
adoption public involvement process.
Circulation
Creation of a local street network that provides balanced circulation for
pedestrian, bikes, auto/truck and transit and is well connected to existing streets
Improve visibility and identity for the study area
Mitigate impacts of auto and truck traffic on Tolman Creek Road and Ashland
Street
Preserve rail access for commuters, passengers and freight
Provide for non-motorized trails linked to existing trails and parks systems
Land Use
Promote the creation of a significant number of family wage jobs
Allow for light industrial and manufacturing
Create parcels with the flexibility to support local new small business, existing
business expansion and large employers
Consider a range of housing options
Allow for a mix of uses
Incorporate a public gathering space
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Page 2 of 7 Croman Mill District Amendments
Community Development Department
February 19, 2018
Preserve streams and wetlands
Include sustainable and green development codes
5. The property contained decommissioned equipment, construction material and piles of
debris and organic material. The property owners began preparing the site for
development by clearing the equipment, material and buildings after the Croman Mill
District was adopted by the City in 2010.
The property owners began a reclamation process in 2012 to remove layers of
organic material from the northwest corner of the site in the former log deck area.
The reclamation of the log deck area continues and is projected to be complete in
January 2020. Reclamation will also be necessary in other parts of the site and likely
need to occur prior to development.
6. Ashland and Croman endeavor to accomplish specific goals and objectives of
Chapter 18.3.10 - Croman Mill District - through cooperation in evaluating and
proposing agreed upon adjustments/amendments to the Croman Mill District code
and official city maps.
B. Project Objectives
1. Establish a clear pathway to jumpstart private land development and associated
public infrastructure installation (i.e. streets and utilities).
2. Accelerate the construction of a new street connection to Siskiyou Boulevard to
address concerns related to the impacts of ongoing site clean-up and reclamation,
which has resulted in dust, noise, track out of debris onto adjoining city streets as
well as presented challenges at the intersection of Tolman Creek Road and Ashland
Street.
3. Facilitate a land use application for annexation of the remaining seven-acres of land
currently outside the Ashland city limits but within the urban growth boundary (UGB).
4. Collaborate on possible amendments to the Croman Mill District that create
momentum for local business expansion/development and facilitate construction of
housing types that meet the needs of a cross-ion based
upon the findings of technical analyses recognized within the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Page 3 of 7 Croman Mill District Amendments
Community Development Department
February 19, 2018
C. Roles and Responsibilities
1. City: Confer with and provide technical and policy suggestions on potential solutions,
code amendment options and City policies with respect to housing and local business
growth. Prepare Croman Mill District map revisions, ordinance amendments and
written findings to address the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule OAR 660-012-
0060.
2. Croman: Prepare and submit an application to amend the Croman Mill District
including proposed changes to land use, site and street framework plans and a
timeline and phasing plan for the Central Boulevard. Prepare and submit an
application for annexation of the southerly portion of the plan area that is outside of
the city limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
3. City and Croman: The City and Croman will each appoint a project manager to be a
principal contact person.
D. Key Contacts
City
Maria Harris
Community Development
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
maria.harris@ashland.or.us
(541) 552-2045
Croman
Mike Montero
Montero and Associates, LLC
4497 Brownridge Terrace, Suite 202
Medford, OR 97504
Montero-associates@charter.net
(541) 944.4376
E. Scope of Work
Acknowledging the information recited in Section A and the mutually agreed upon
project objectives set forth in Section B, the parties agree to the scope of work, as
outlined in Exhibit A.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Page 4 of 7 Croman Mill District Amendments
Community Development Department
February 19, 2018
ExhibitA
Scope of Work
Task Responsible Party and Deliverables
1 Schedule and hold joint meeting between city staff and City: Task list and timeline
Croman representatives to clarify details of the scope of
work. Croman: Schedule meeting
2 Coordinate with state agencies (DLCD, ODOT) to identify City: Schedule and attend meetings
potential issues related to the buildable lands inventory
(BLI) and traffic impact analysis.
3 Establish objectives for mix and types of housing based on City: Copy of relevant City plans
upon the findings of technical analyses recognized within
the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Croman: Draft objectives
4 Prepare general site plan, street layout and land uses. Croman: Draft plans
5 Review and provide feedback on general site plan and City: Memo summarizing comments
proposed housing types.
6 Revise general site plan, street layout and land uses. Croman: Revised plans
7 Update City Council and Planning Commission. City: Schedule meetings, written
materials for packet and meeting
presentation
Croman: Attend meetings
8 Update traffic impact analysis (TIA) for proposed changes City: Existing TIA, summary of
to existing zoning and identify potential mitigation proposed changes to land uses,
strategies. acreage and floor area/number of
residential units, procurement
documents and project management
Consultant: Updated traffic impact
analysis
9 Update BLI, as needed. City: Updated BLI
10 Prepare timeline and phasing plan for construction of Croman: Central Boulevard plan
Central Boulevard.
11 Review and provide feedback on plan for construction of City: Memo summarizing comments
Central Boulevard.
12 Submit materials for a pre-application conferences Croman: Pre-application conference
between City departments. submittals
13 City Council and Planning Commission study sessions to City: Written materials for packet and
present proposed Croman Mill District amendments and meeting presentation
timeline and phasing plan for the construction of the
Central Boulevard. Croman: Draft site plan, street layout,
land uses and timeline and phasing
plan for construction of Central
Boulevard; attend meetings
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Page 5 of 7 Croman Mill District Amendments
Community Development Department
February 19, 2018
Task Responsible Party and Deliverables
14 City Council regular meeting to initiate planning City: Written materials for packet and
application. meeting presentation
15 Jointly prepare major amendments to the Croman Mill City: Revised plan maps as needed
District per 18.3.2.020.C, any necessary ordinance (e.g. Croman Mill District zoning),
amendments and written findings addressing the draft ordinance amendments and
Statewide Planning Goal 12 Transportation including OAR written findings for OAR 660-012-
660-012-0060. 0060 Transportation
Croman: Written findings addressing
major amendment approval criteria,
proposed changes to land uses and
proposed changes to site and street
framework plans
16 Prepare annexation planning application. Croman: Application submission
requirements
17 Prepare developer agreement (if necessary) to City: Developer agreement
memorialize responsibilities, including but not limited to
preparation of civil drawings for public improvements and
construction schedule for the Central Boulevard.
18 Submit Type III (Legislative) planning application for Croman
annexation and amendments to the Croman Mill District.
19 Commission hearings (Housing; Transportation; Planning). City: Commission meeting hearing
dates and notices as required
Croman: Presentation to commissions
20 City Council Hearing Process on Legislative Changes and City: City Council meeting date and
Annexation request. notices as required
Croman: Presentation to City Council
21 Permanent Road Access Permit (ODOT/Jackson County). Croman
22 Submit Type II application for housing development Croman: Planning application
proposals consistent with revised Croman Mill District. materials
D. Other Considerations
This non-binding MOU will be effective as of the date of the last signature. Any party
wishing to terminate this MOU should provide the other party written notice at least 60 days
prior to the planned termination.
Except as provided herein, nothing in this MOU shall be construed as obligating either party
to expend funds or oblige future payment of money authorized by law and administratively
available for this work.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Page 6 of 7 Croman Mill District Amendments
Community Development Department
February 19, 2018
obligate the City to approve or modify the requirements for, any applications Croman may
submit.
City of Ashland
___________________________________ ___________________
City AdministratorDate
Croman Corporation
_______________________________ ___________________
Signature of Official Date
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Page 7 of 7 Croman Mill District Amendments
Community Development Department
February 19, 2018
Croman Mill District Aerial
Attachment 1
(photo 2012)
±
Feet
0200400800
Attachment 2
Existing Land Use
City Limits
Croman Mill District
E-1
landuse
office employment (CM-OE)
compatible industrial (CM-CI)
neighborhood center (CM-NC)
mixed use (CM-MU)
R-1-5
M-1
openspace/conservation (CM-OS)
central park
R-1-5
E-1
E-1
±
Feet
01603206409601,2801,600
Croman Mill District
Attachment 3
Potential Revision Areas
(3/05/2018)
M-1
R-1-5
Future
E-1
E-1
E-1
Future
M-1
Croman Mill District
City Limits
Land Use Zones
Croman Plan boundary
City Limits
landuse
compatible industrial (CM-CI)
neighborhood center (CM-NC)
office employment (CM-OE)
±
openspace/conservation
potential revision areas
Feet
0200400800
Document Path: C:\\gis\\Croman_amendments\\Croman_LandUse_adjustments.mxd
From:
Mark DiRienzo <markd@mind.net>
Subject: Croman - Citizen Input for Tonight
Date:
February 26, 2019 at 12:48:07 PM PST
To:
tbrownpc@gmail.com, Harper Alan
<alandbharper@gmail.com>, sassetta@mind.net, molnarb@ashland.or.us,
Haywood Norton <fhnorton527@gmail.com>, Pearce Roger
<pearcer22@gmail.com>, Stefani Seffinger <stefani@council.ashland.or.us>,
Thomspon Lynn <lkthompson@hotmail.com>
Dear Planning Commission members,
Please consider my input and questions below when discussing Croman Mill MOU
tonight. I am unfortunately unable to make the meeting to talk in person.
As background,
since 2006 I have been developing the Mistletoe Road Business Park
(M1 zone) directly adjacent to Croman Mill land (CM zone) and have successfully built
three commercial buildings and (self storage in the rear) that are thriving with small
businesses including Organic Alcohol Company and MaskIT. Two of these buildings
were the first two, and I believe only, Enterprise Zone approved projects in
Ashland. The small businesses have added significantly to their employee base out
there, and the project was, by my choice, built at a significantly higher level in quality
than was required by code. Since my property is the gateway to Croman Mill, my goal
was to set the standard for all the future buildings that would be developed next door.
Part of this Business Park development included me dedicating land to the City (approx.
1/2 acre of my 6 acre parcel) and then at my cost paying to widen Mistletoe Road,
installing park row landscape strips, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, stormdrain, sewer,
electrical transformers as
the entire north property parallel to the railroad tracks for future access to CM zone. All
of this combined with large SDC permit costs were just part of doing business, and these
costs for my project were not paid for by the City at all.
The Croman Mill Masterplan discussions that started around 2008 were exciting to
participate in, until, at one point, it became clear that the code language, site design
standards, and elaborate infrastructure layout were going to create a slow-to-no-growth
result. I, John Fields, and several other developers and industry-aware individuals spoke
multiple times against this path, instead suggesting the plan be PAUSED to go through a
review by industry-aware folks who could help pencil out true costs and the realities of
getting projects built, as well having staff help answer questions about how incremental
growth could actually happen to give prospective tenants clarity of the costs of a single
building going in out there.
Sadly, that input was largely ignored, and almost a decade later, it is no surprise to me
that nothing has happened. I have
talked with numerous tenants, large and small, who were interested in coming out to
Mistletoe Road for their project only to be dissuaded by the CM costs and
complications. Those businesses are now operating in Talent, Phoenix, Medford.
Economic development and commercial projects CAN and will materialize out on
Mistletoe Road at little cost to the City if there are clear, simple code and design
standards.
MOU:
traffic and $50k staff time). That is no small amount of money on top of the approx
$250k spent on CM Masterplan 10 yrs ago that has produced zero return for the City. It
is also an opportunity cost for the planning department staff who could be working on
other things. Therefore, it deserves a close look as to whether an MOU as described is
To be clear, I am in
the best next step to get Croman Mill development kickstarted.
support of adding housing on Croman land, but only if that housing solves
workforce housing needs and integrates well with a vibrant
commercial/industrial zone that provides jobs for Ashlanders.
Please consider some of these questions in your review of this situation:
Why is the MOU, as written, not considering abandoning the central boulevard,
1.
multi-use path and other elaborate infrastructure and instead utilizing the existing
Mistletoe Road as the primary road with just standard public
improvements?
Clearly, the regular standards are working on my project next door to
attract businesses and development dollars. The assumption in the MOU appears to be
that all the existing Croman Mill design standards should stay as is, despite those
standards having scared off developments to date.
-Triangle" style workforce housing
2.
in this economic development/commercial zone?
Instead the MOU/Staff public
presentations call for SFR and Cottage housing, neither of which provide any density
comparatively nor are those a fit for active commercial/industrial zones. Additionally,
the Croman Mill zone documents, adopted in 2010, clearly state that the Tolman Creek
Transit route will be diverted onto Mistletoe from Tolman Creek Road. So, Croman is
already destined to become the 3rd leg of the Transit Triangle plan. PS:
Transit Triangle plan shows zero developable lots on Tolman from the tracks to Siskiyou,
so why not utilize the Transit Triangle code on Mistletoe where dense workforce housing
buildings can actually get built? SFR has historically become the most expensive and
least dense housing in Ashland, why add more when we need workforce housing so
badly?
10 years ago the City evidenced to the State granting committee a significant need
3.
for economic development on our last remaining large tract of commercial land
within the City and now 10 years later we need less commercial land?
What has
changed that would minimize our need for commercial lands? Has Ashland given up
entirely on getting businesses to move here? As a citizen of Ashland for 21 years,
helping to run small businesses, developing property, and volunteering for non-profits, I
can say unequivocally that we need more jobs in town, and jobs that come from active
businesses, not just office users. Considering things like the CEAP requirements, having
a large part of our population leave the city every day to drive to work outside of Ashland
will not be sustainable.
What exactly will the traffic study be looking at?
4. Will it cover all the way up
Croman out to Siskiyou and then out to Bellview School and in the other direction all the
way down Mistletoe to Tolman and then down to Ashland Street intersection? Seems
like it needs to be a broad study to give any useful data, is this budget line item enough?
How does this new MOU plan allow for incremental development?
5. Ashland
the Masterplan went wrong 10 years ago. Incremental options are the only way to get
things rolling out there.
What is the commitment from the property owner in return for the City
6.
spending more time and money?
10 years ago this same property owner promised a
large commercial tenant (Plexis) would build a campus on Croman if only the City
ty met those demands, with
some detriment to the overall Croman Mill design, in order to encourage Plexis, but
Plexis never came. There was no contract between the property owner and Plexis, just
promises. Now, the property owner is promising they have an investor who will invest
all at once to build out infrastructure if only SFR and Cottage housing is approved. What
contract does the property owner have in place this time or will the City just change the
zoning again only to find that that investor had no true commitment to follow through?
7. The land should be
left with only clean fill and be compacted properly to allow immediate development. Is
there any requirement that the fill being brought daily onsite from all over the Valley is
clean? Is there any requirement that the fill be properly compacted to allow development
afterward? Are there compaction testing results required? If not, then whomever tries to
develop that land will face very expensive cut and fill work all over again. Extra
info: For 7 years the property owner has run a for-profit soil drop-off facility for
excavation projects all over the south valley with any type of soil, with the result being
truck traffic damaging roads, silt filling public street gutters, dust and dirt storms,
homeless camps that caused an 8 acre fire, with little regard for City infrastructure and
neighborhood impacts. This operation never went through a land use application, is
currently un-permitted, not legal in the CM zone, and has no oversight by City or
DEQ. It is running this long because it pays to be a soil dump site on the south end of the
valley. They are now starting to store demolished cars too. Lets make sure if the City
has to put up with this any more, that the fill left behind is clean and adequately
compacted to allow immediate development.
Will a thorough review of the current Croman code language be performed to
8.
broaden the bldg size options, type of floorplans allowed, etc?
Current CM zones
have complicated % of space use, large minimum building sizes that generally exceed
Ashland sized businesses, to name a few. These codes seem like an attempt to restrict
which business could actually operate there. Unfortunately, some of our best Ashland
zones due to their blend of exec offices, outdoor storage, and warehouse needs. Seems
like this code needs to become more flexible if we hope to attract solid businesses.
How much direction will Staff be giving to Croman folks in order to obtain
9.
acceptable draft plans required in the MOU?
The draft plan from Croman folks
shown last year showed affordable housing clumped in one place directly across from my
business park, the SFR was segregated away in its own area.
within neighborhoods, not relegated to undesirable locations. I agree with that. I believe
housing in Croman should supply dense workforce housing, transit triangle style
buildings. Affordable units could be integrated into these projects easily. Instead, having
the Croman folks design the site will likely end up in a segregated affordable housing
know Staff will be able to direct the results to meet economic development and
workforce housing needs.
I do plan
to meet with staff soon to discuss these same issues.
I encourage all the critical thinking you can muster to work through this next step so that
the money spent and the output actually produces tangible buildable results that helps
both encourage workforce housing and a thriving economic development hub for
Ashland.
Regards,
Mark DiRienzo, Ashland Oregon
541-621-8393