HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-1015 Council Mtg PACKETCouncil Meeting Pkt. C ! I ¥ O F
BARBARA CHRISTENSEN ~S H LAND
CITY RECORDER
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 15, 2002, 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 1,2002.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
i~i Mayor's Proclamation of"National Red Ribbon Celebration Week."
Mayor's Proclamation of "Wodd Population Awareness Week."
V. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Jonathan Uto to the Tree Commission for a
term to expire April 30, 2004.
3. Ratification of labor contract between the City and IBEW Electrical Local 569.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the
subject ora Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued
to a subsequent meeting.)
1. Public Hearing and consideration of potential sale of real property - 9,000 square foot
lot adjacent to 128 W. Nevada Street.
2. Public Hearing on the Appeal of Planning Action 2002-052, a Request for Site
Review Approval for a 13-Unit Cottage Style Condominium Development at 2275
Siskiyou Boulevard. Request includes a Variance to Rear Yard Requirements (10
feet required, 7 feet proposed), and for distance between buildings.
VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less,
depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.)
COUN('II., MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST HVE ON (Tt..tANNEI.. 9
VISIT 'I'ltE CITY OF ASllI.,ANI)'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND,OR.US
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Consideration of the disposition of potential surplus real property (continued from
September 17, 2002).
IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
v'l. Designation of voting delegate for League of Oregon Cities meeting in November.
2. Discussion of the Potential to maximize the City's energy independence by utilizing
altemative energy sources.
3. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report.
X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
(None)
XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS:
XlI. ADJOURNMENT:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002
(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-
35. 104 ADA Title I).
C()[ .~N('II. M Ii~ I ~T1 NGSAR E B R()AI)('i~AST I.,IV E ON C
VI S [1' T111,i CITY OF AS} t [,AN D'S WEB SI'FI! A'I' WWW.AS} tl.,AN D.OR. [ J S
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 1,2002,7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison, and Hearn were present. Councilor Reid was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 17, 2002 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Proclamations of "Disability Employment Awareness Month" and "Fire Prevention Week" were read
aloud.
Mayor acknowledged a student from Phoenix High School.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
2. Liquor License Application from Mark Thomas dba Louie's Bar & Grill located at 41 North
Main Street.
3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Jack Catron to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commissiou
for a term to expire April 30, 2004.
Councilors Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
PUBLIC FORUM
Kirk Tierney/no address/Shared scripture. Read reference to Declaration ofIndependence.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave/Spoke regarding discussed proposals for Affordable Housing and how he
felt the city was moving in the wrong direction. He opposed the proposed development of the Willow
Wind property as affordable housing. He felt that because the land was purchased by the school district
for educational purposes, it should be kept specifically for this purpose. He voiced his desire that this
land be developed as a working farm and opposed to providing city services to this property. He also
spoke regarding the selling of city property and how it relates to Affordable Housing. He spoke regarding
the Big Box Ordinance and sited several areas that he was opposed to. He urged the city to follow the
example of the City of Portland by using a percentage tax on all real estate transactions.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Purchase of Liberty Street Open Space Property.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin briefly explained the purchasing of this property
and how it met the goals of the Open Space Program. He explained that this property would contain a
portion of the T.LD. ditch and by having a trail easement off Liberty Street, it would provide a trail to the
ditch. The city would be obtaining a trail easement at the upper end of Liberty Street that would assure
public access in the future. He presented a map that indicated the location of the property and the
placement of the trail that would be open to the public. He noted that there are opportunities to loop trails.
City Council Meeting 10/01/02 Page 1 of 2
Morrison noted that this property is on the acquisition list for the Open Space Plan.
Councilors Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve staff recommendation to purchase the Liberty Street
property for approximately $115,000 to be charged to the Open Space Funds. In addition, to
authorize the Mayor and staff to execute all documents necessary for the purchase, the division of
the property and the conveyance of a portion to the neighbor. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading of "An Ordinance Adding Chapter 2.17, Public Arts Commission, to the Ashland
Municipal Code."
Council held lengthy discussion and debate regarding several sections of the proposed ordinance.
Proposed changes, deletions, correction of grammar, clarity of purpose and intent, addition of pursuing
grants for public arts and outside funding, use of staff time and question of department responsibility for
this ordinance was properly noted.
Bruce Bayard/621 A Street/Spoke as a proponent for this commission and a member of the study group
that brought forward the proposal for an Arts Commission. He explained what the study group was trying
to accomplish and clarified that the intent of the commission was to advise and to be used as a resource.
He stated that the intent of the commission was not to act as booking agents for performing arts groups,
but would like to leave open the option of participating in dedications, events, etc.
Council agreed to bring the ordinance back for first reading next month which would allow staff time to
bring forward a draft with the discussed changes. The council was encouraged to contact staff with any
further suggestions for change.
Eric Navickasl7ll Faith Street/Spoke in favor of proposed Arts Commission and brought forward
suggestions for the council to consider. He noted that the City of Medford has an Arts Commission and
allows for funding of this Commission.
2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Authorizing the Mayor to add Student Liaison
Members to Commissions and Committees."
Councilors Laws/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #2889. DISCUSSION: Clarification on length
of appointment and replacement of members was made. Morrison voiced favor for youth liaisons and that
they should be voting members. He stated that he would continue to advocate voting privilege for these
liaisons. Roll Call Vote: Jackson, Laws, Hearn and Morrison, YES. Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 4-1
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS (None)
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorderrrreasurer
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
City Council Meeting 10/01/02
Page 2 of2
_...."..~'"."___" '_'U
.,........."._~ '
'r""'-~'
Office of the Mayor
Alan W DeBoer
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 9, 2002
FROM:
City Council Members
Mayor Alan DeBoe~
TO:
RE:
Appointment to Tree Commission
This is to request confirmation of my appointment of Jonathan Uto to the Tree
Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2004.
The vacancy was created by the recent resignation of Greg Covey.
Attached is Jonathan Uto's letter of interest received in response to the vacancy. The
vacant position was advertised in the Ashland Daily Tidings (copy attached), was posted
on the city's website, and also on the noticeboard in City Hall.
Attachment
City of Ashland . 20 East Main Street . Ashland, OR 97520 . (541) 488-6002 . Fax: (541) 488-5311 . Email: awdb@aol.com
,....---,.. -,.,
Please publish:
Tidings - Monday, September 9 and Saturday, September 14
Revels: Thursday, September 12
Refer to P.O. 54732
Questions? Please call Fran at 488-6002
The City of Ashland has a vacancy on the TREE COMMISSION for
a term to expire April 30, 2004. If you are interested in being con-
sidered for a volunteer position on the Tree Commission, please
submit your request in writing, with a copy of your resume (if avail-
able) to the City Recorder's office, Additional information regarding
this position can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder.
APPLY TO:The City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main St., Ashland.
APPLY BY: Tuesday, September 24, 2002,
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
..,.,- .._,,-- T"
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Jonathan Uto" <jonuto@hotmail.com>
<christeb@ashland.or.us>
9/24/02 1 :50AM
Tree Commission Vacancy
To Whom It May Concern, My name is Jonathan Uto and I am interested in being selected to
fill the vacancy on the Tree Commission. Currently I serve on the Housing Commission and am
a student at Southern Oregon University. My hope is to one day go into city planning and I feel I
can assist with the mission of the Tree Commission as well as gain much insight and knowledge
on city planning and administration. I hope you will consider my enthusiasm for this position.
I can be reached at 552-0317. Or more readily by email. Thank you for your time. Jonathan
Uto
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
, ...... r
,. .. -Page 1 ..
'-_'~~_^'Y_Y' . -,.,0.0, .
CITY OF
4kSHLAND
Council Communication
Title: Ratification of labor contract between the City and IBEW Electrical Local 659
Dept: Administration
Date: October 8, 2002
Submitted By: Tina Gray, Administrative Services/HR Manager ~
Approved By: Greg Scole~
Synopsis:
The City began negotiating a new labor contract with the IBEW 659, in May 2002. The City has
reached tentative agreement with the union and is recommending final ratification of the agreement by
the City Council.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council authorize the Interim City Administrator to sign the labor contract,
ratifying the tentative agreement reached in negotiations.
Fiscal Impact:
The three-year contract calls for a 5% employee contribution for health insurance premiums beginning
January 1, 2003. The agreement calls for retroactive pay increases of 3% to be applied to the current
wage schedule, a cost that has already been factored into the current budget process. Contract provisions
also include an additional .5% increase will be implemented on January 1, 2003 to help offset the
premium contribution from the employee. The .5% approximates the. additional cost to the city of
$355/month over the July 1, 2002 base wage rates. This increase will not create any fiscal impact, in
fact, the city will see a cost savings generated by employee contributions to health insurance.
Background:
As anticipated, rising health insurance rates were a central factor in negotiations. Additionally, contract
wages and subsequent Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA's) played a significant role in the overall
economic package. Minor procedural or language changes were addressed early in the bargaining
process, but negotiations were delayed until a satisfactory solution was obtained for wages and health
benefits.
The City eventually enlisted the help of a mediator to reach a tentative agreement. The mediator was able
to bring both sides to a satisfactory solution on wages and benefits, and all other items fell into place. The
City will implement a pre-tax premium contribution plan on January 1, 2003, to help ease the impact of
the employee cost share. The .5% increase will be applied to wages at the same time, which results in
very little out-of-pocket cost to the IBEW employees during the first contract year, depending on their
coverage level. Management employees will be required to pay 5% of their heath insurance premiums
beginning on January 1, 2003. For the remaining years of the contract, the City will not require the
IBEW union to pay any larger share of their monthly health premiums than it requires of Management
employees. The COLA's for subsequent contract years will be based on the CPI with a minimum of 2%
and a maximum of 4.5%.
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title: Consideration of potential sale of real property- 9,900 sq. fi. Lot Adjacent to
128 W. Nevada Street
Dept: Administration
October 15, 2002
Date:
Submitted By: Greg Scoles, City Administrato~
Reviewed By: Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Synopsis:
This action will authorize the city administrator to take all actions necessary to market and sell the 9,900
sq. fi. parcel adjacent to 128 W. Nevada Street. This is a single family lot next to the Ashland Creek
floodplain.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the council determine that it is necessary and convenient to sell the lot located
adjacent to 128 W. Nevada Street and to further authorize the city administrator to take all actions
necessary to market and sell the lot with the net proceeds of the sale to be used to reimburse the Open
Space Fund.
Fiscal Impact:
The net proceeds from the sale of the lot will be used to reimburse the Open Space Fund for a portion of
the original purchase price.
Background:
The property was purchased in August 2002, with open space funds. In August the council authorized
the purchase ora 2.1 acre parcel which included 1.9 acres of parkland (Parcel No. 3) and this 9,900 sq. ft.
Single Family Residential (R-1-5-P) parcel (Parcel No. 2) - see attached exhibit "A ".
At their meeting on October 8th the Planning Commission adopted findings approving the partition of this
property.
ORS 221.725 requires that prior to any sale of city real property that the city holds a public hearing
concerning the sale. It also requires that a public notice of the hearing be published during the week prior
to the hearing, which describes the property, the proposed uses for the property and the reasons why the
city council considers it necessary to sell the property (see attached Notice of Public Hearing).
A Competitive Market Analysis has been prepared and establishes a price range of $95,000 to $105,000
with a suggested list price of $105,000. Any offer for the purchase of the property must exceed this
amount or staff will bring the proposal back for further council action.
Mnor land Partition request at 12p..c: Nevada St. 391E 04BD Tax Lot 1901.
- ...---
\.\ml'~~~'~
,,,\', "', .,... --:-:~~--~~-~~---------~-~:,"~ ""
- ~ :. I ~', ~_ ~ - - - - - - - -
, --
Parent Parcel = 2.3acres
-- r
I
NEVK>A ST
~
Ii
"
J
jl
,I
;1
Ii
:'(/-~'
, \
, \
, \
: \
, '.
; \,
, .
, ,
, ,
, \
: \ '
, \
I
1160/// - \
, "
,
/'
t --
~--
"
II
It
II
r ..
II
!I
II
!I
iI"': :
~ " ' .-"-
J :', ~ ''.''..'..-''' '. '.~'" . ~: ~~~<~'--:--
"
IL __
I:
Parcel 3
1.9 acres
, ,-' . (Openspace I Dedicated Parklard)
,
, ,
I
I
'/
! '
-~ '~.,--~~'~"'...
ro 0 ro Feet .
~--- '~.
SOlRCE' CITY CE ASHJW:) Scale: 1" =00 , ., --, - --
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Fax
TO:
FAX:
FROM:
DATE:
Daily Tidings, Classified
482-3688
Fran Berteau, Executive Secretary
October 4, 2002
Please place an ad in the legal notices as follows:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ashland City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 15,2002 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center, Council Chambers at 1175 E. Main Street,
to consider the sale of a single family parcel located immediately west of 128 W. Nevada Street. The
City Council further considers it necessary to sell the property because it is surplus. The proposed use
of the property is single family residential.
By order ofthe City Council
Please publish: October 10, 2002
P.O. No. ~'-t'::{. "1 S
ADMINISTRA nON
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
~~,
.,.......--
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE: Public Hearing on the Appeal of Planning Action 2002-052, a Request for Site Review
Approval for a 13-Unit Cottage Style Condominium Development at 2275 Siskiyou
Boulevard. Request Includes a Variance to Rear Yard Requirements (10 Feet Required,
7 Feet Proposed), and for Distance Between Buildings.
DEPT: Department of Community Development
Planning Division
DATE: October 15, 2002
SUBMITTED BY: John McLaughlin, Director of ~mmunity Development
APPROVED BY: Greg Scoles, City Administrat~r~/
Synopsis: The Planning Commission approved the above referenced Planning Action at their
regular meeting of August 13, 2002. After the adoption of findings, the action was
appealed by in a timely manner by four residents of the adjacent Ashley Senior
Apartments.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve the request, upholding the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Background: The attached packet contains the complete record of the project, include the appellant's
letter to the council (pages 1-31), the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
(pages 40-45), and the Staff Report (pages 54-64 and 147-157).
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2002-052
2275 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 13-UNIT COTTAGE STYLE CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT. INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS (10 FEET
REQUIRED, 7.0 FEET PROPOSED), AND FOR DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL;
ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 14 CB; TAX LOT: 3600.
9-18-02
9-25-02
9-12-02
8-1 3-02
8-6-02
8-13-02
8-13-02
8-13-02
8-13-02
8-13-02
7 -24-02
7 -8-02
7 -9-02
7 -9-02
6-11-02
6-4-02
6-4-02
3-5-02
Appeal Letter to Council
Notice of Public Hearing and Related Criteria
Findings for PA2002-052
Planning Commission Minutes
Memo from Dave Hard, Fire Dept. (dated 10-4-02) & approved map
Notice of Public Hearing and related Criteria
Vicinity map
Mailing List for Notice Map
Staff Report Addendum II dated August 13, 2002
Memo from Tree Commission
Parking Plan
On-Site Tree Summary
Site Review Application
Request for Postponement of Hearing
Staff Report dated July 9, 2002
Notice of Public Hearing
Staff Report dated June 11, 2002
Memo from Dave Hard, Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshall
Tree Commission Site Review
Letter from ODOT
Letters in Support and Opposition
1""'""'0_- 0"
1-31
32 -33
34-39
40-45
46-47
48-50
51
52-53
54-64
65-66
67
68
69-136
137
138-145
146
147-157
158-159
160
161
162-200
Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.108.110
Notice of appeal to council
-~.-..-- ----. - ..-.-..------.-
Appellants Residence of Ashley Senior Apartment
Barbara Brown #304-2301 Siskiyou
Heinz ~ei'lmI.euJ fN #108-2301 Siskiyou;' 8 "
Dorothy Camaghi #302-2301 Siskiyou
Mary Stone #311-2301 Siskiyou
Planning Action #2002-052 - August 13, 2002
Findings, Conclusion, and Orders adopted at September 2002 meeting.
Letter from Bill Molner, Senior Planner dated and mailed Sept. 12,2002
, .
Procedure Irregularity:
1. Administrative Variance
Section 18.72.090-A-B-C-D
2. PhysicallEnvironmental Constraints Section 18.62.040- Approval and permit required.
Both items not addressed in Planning Action 2002-52. Findings, conclusions, and orders-statements
or implied rational at August 13, Planning Meeting ~ follows:
Ashland Investment Group II and Sage Development LLC, with the approval ofU.S.D.A. Rural Development
(Ashley Lender) are the owners of the property involved, both agree to plan. Tenants of Ashley Senior are not
owners. Renters cannot be negatively impacted.
Criteria for Varience 18.100.020
1.
2. ORD.2425-S 1, 1987
3. ORD.2775, 1996
Attatched
Administrative Variance Site Design and Use Standards Section 18.72.090 - 18.72.080 B-D
Physical and Environmental Constraints 18.62.040
Criteria for Approval
1. Adverse impacts, etc.
2. Potential hazards, etc.
3. Adverse impact, irreversible actions, existing development, etc. (Above Attached)
Planning Meeting Minutes-August 13, 2002
Bill Molner states: Two letters in support. Does not mention packet submitted by B. Brown to planning
on July 3rdandletters from D. Camaghi and H. Leivin not mentioned. Complete discussion not available as:
Pete at RvTv said no video was destroyed. 'Drafts of minutes are edited. Packet submitted by B. Brown on'
July 3rd including a copy for planning, one copy each for planning commission, one copy each for City Council
members. Packet was dismantled and recopied by Planning and inserted into their file. Unable to attend
8/13/02 meeting and after Planning Action was approved, minutes not noting packet and most issues not
addressed, B. Brown was told it would be lobbying to ask Planning Commission members if they received
packet.
I
1 --
Section 18.108.110 Appeal to Council Applicable Criteria
Parking Plan-Creekside Cottages
Ashley Senior's have more residents that have handicapped parking plaques than there are now disabled
parking spaces available. Many residents have large older cars. The parking lot now has no compact car
requirements. This new plan has 31 compact spaces and reduces handicapped spaces. 16 parking spaces on
Creekside will be backing into Ashley parking area plus the 3 Creekside parking spaces given them in parking
lot. There are no loading zones for either parcel. All traffic through parking lot will be22 'diving lanes and
reduced to 20' driveway to Siskiyou Blvd. Residents of Ashley will have to walk through driving lanes to
auto's and trash dumpster. With no adequate loading areas for short term and long term vehicle parking,
driving lanes will be obstructed.
Creekside Cottages have lofts that could be used as bedroom. August 13th Planning minutes show Molnar
stating that is a judgment call and open to interpretation. Creekside Cottages will be 13 owners with 13
different owners, with unknown number of occupants, with unknown number of visitors, service personnel etc.
Creekside parking spaces may be full leaving Ashley parking only place to park. Ashley parking is subject to
first come, first served. Many situations could arise with Ashley residents, family, friends, and service needs,
unable to park. Ashley residents have no way to enforce any parking rules. Management is not around 24
hours, 7 days a week.
Criteria A.-unique and unusual circumstances, self-imposed? Flood plains and riparian seem too fairly
common with development in Ashland. Senior and Disabled, low-income Federally Subsidized Housing is
unique and unusual. The Donald Lewis (HUD) is the only other.
Criteria: Negative impacts on adjacent property. Adverse impacts potential hazards irreversible actions are part
of the criteria. Implied threats, from making the entry drive and parking lot illegal, to rent increases, living on
the streets, to an eviction notice (later tom up). This has an effect on Ashley Seniors.
Please deny this development project.
~
~~ \ \ ,'1tIl) ~a3 ~ \~' J
, J~ 1/ ~~;.... r.r--~.,.n v v v v v v-.~ V ~
~ 1U II ~ ~1/[~~~f!1'" -^~~-()" ~ )
~) I ~ f/~~" \,}I ~ _ 7":"'-; : : ·
.' .",;', :"if" ~ ~ II ~;:::! 57
....---.....,'.. ".,I!ffiJ.. ~.'.Z.~.1.~'. .... l ~, -./ L- 30 C 50
......... "":,' . "<': "U ij) / CD C 49
..,.,..-".,.. ." I In C
..'.c ' . ",' ., \i!,I <2> C _ 31
~ll I A ro v ~
I-':J I 18'-1'- -2U)" -16'~ 18'-0"- 22'-0" 1318'-0"- 18'-fl 25'-()" ~8'-()"_
I!!!LD ~ 7' CD ,I.i .. 2Ii
. '.' -, ~ 'l; toe 2 C 2S 34 46 61
'-J "- ~ \1; ::: : : ~
~ 5 C fI C
c(9) 22
I--W- l)'
C@
I- c.k! " _
~ C@
)t~~
~~~~
a
df ~.
'.Id-~r ~\
~ l'.?J~1 ;9-
--""~~ ,~
~rq
-Lt~
I
~
,
,.
.-:~
.....-"'","(.
:\-~
IiI
, ,
~
~~
~
~,
~ .'1~
'a ,
7 C
lNT6
8 C
9 C
\. ~-v-
f ..'; --
~~- : ~ ~
:i~~~;~}~i' ~-:
, -@
10 C
11 C
12 C
=--
25'-0"
13
s
.~ 'I
r- I
ig
/////:
14
"\ 22'..()" _18'..()"
'/ Ol\ \' 15
7'~ '/ ///// @)
r
" 20'..()"
L/
:;;':;"'."
LV
~-"~c
'~~
~ f\ ~ :=::::
'<f~ "'1" .--1---
~~. ",," =' "-
~~ "'~r
-
3
58
C 48
59
62
.. c
21 lypical
this row 39 C
20 9'-0" ! 40 C
19 wide
41 C
18
17
42 C
~
43
44
'l" //h
ASHlEY SENIOR HOUSING
LEGEND
CREEKSIDE PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 21 (includes 3 spaces from
Ashley and 2 on-street credits)
2; ASHLEY PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 62 (gross total 65 with
3 spaces provided to Creekside)
COMPACT PARKING SPACES
Number of compact spaces:
CREEKSIDE - 8
ASHLEY - 31
PARKING PLAN:
CREEKSIDE COnAGES
AND ASHLEY SENIOR HOUSING
SCALE 1. = 40"""
~.. --
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSI°N
August 13, 2002 -
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2002-052, REQUEST FOR SITE ) FINDINGS,
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 13-UNIT, COTTAGE STYLE CONDOMINIUM ) CONCLUSIONS
DEVELOPMENT FOR THEPROPERTY LOCATED AT 2275 SISKIYOU ) AND ORDERS
BOULEVARD. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO REAR YARD )
SETBACK STANDARDS AND FOR DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS. )
)
APPLICANT: ALAN PARDEE )
RECITAL S:
1) Tax lot 3600 of 391E 14 CB is located at 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard and is zoned R-3; High Density
Multi-Family Residential.
2) The applicant is proposing to construct a 13-unit, cottage-style condominium development, including
a Variance to rear yard setback standards and for distance between buildings.
3) The following Site Review approval are described in section 18.72 of the land use ordinance:
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
t/~D.) That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
~electficity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can an~
to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991)
The criteria for approval of a rear yard setback and distance between buildings Variance
are described in AMC 18.100 as follows:
That there are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the .~_
~djaceni use~; and ~ii further the ~~d i~tent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive
--Plan of the City. (0rd.242> Sl, 191t7). ~
~e .circumstances or conditions--l~Ve not been willfully or purpOsely self-imposed. (Ord.
2775, 1996) _.-. ' ......
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on August 13, 2002,
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission 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:
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 "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
/
2.1 The Planning Commission fmds 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 Th~ Planning Commissio;-nni:IS1liatthe proposal to construct a 13-unit, cottage-style .
condominium development, including a Variance to rear yard setback standards and for distance
between buildings meets all applicable criteria for approval described in the Site Review chapter,
2 and Variances chapter 18.100. ----/
~_.-D/The Commission finds that the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Review
approval. Public facilities are located within Siskiyou Boulevard, ~~.~en~~.!~g~~lXp:~~~t
__ (to the north)~.N1.~..~!.~,:a11able t~_~~~~~.9Aa~~~ne..~d.~gI.fu~..p~~J~LStreet improveme~ts
will be constructed along '"SisKiyou Boulevard the entire len of the to' ect's fronta e. Stree
~vementc; sb!ll co~j~~_2.__!._~b~..=- 00 _e lane, on-street parking (whe!~_!l:()t~.!~,_~'!fb an~..
gutter, storm drain, seven foot planting strip and Sii:rOOL'smewanc;::::~-
------.------
Twenty one parking spaces are provided consistent with City of Ashland parking standards. The site
plan identifies required project parking within the boundary of the site (16 spaces), within the
adjacent and reconfigured senior~artment parking lot (three spaces) and through credits along
Siskiyou Boulevard (two-creditsX In addition, the project design has shown creativity in its attempt
to utilize the existing driveway that serves the adjoining senior housing project, as well as
negotiating a shared parking arrang~
The Commission finds that the project design is consistent the City's Site Design and Use Standards
5
4) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association be provided at the time of signature
of the Condominium Plat and shall describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all common area
landscaping, pathways, planting strips and street trees.
5) That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, be installed along the frontage of Siskiyou Boulevard.
The Staff Advisor, based upon the location of existing trees and areas of severe slope may approve
exceptions to street tree location and spacing. Street trees with root barriers to be installed within the
planting strip prior to the certificate of occupancy. Root barrier design, if required, shall be submitted for
review and approval at the time building permit submission.
6) That all easements for public walkways, sewer, water, electric, and streets shall be indicated on the
condominium survey plat as proposed by the applicant and required by tJte City of Ashland.
7) That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan and irrigation system plan incorporating
the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission for all common areas and planting strips be
submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit.
8) That a site, size and species specific floodplain restoration plan, as noted in the application, be provided
by the project landscape architect and arborist for review by the Tree Commission Staff liaison and
approval of the Staff Advisor. Landscaping improvements to the floodplain corridor shall be installed
before the issuance of certificate of occupancy for more than 50 percent of the units.
9) That installation of fencing is prohibited within the floodplain corridor. All fencing along the public
walkway (running north to south) shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet.
10) That a final grading plan accompanies the building permits and be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit.
11) That all common open space improvements (i.e. landscaping, irrigation, etc.) be installed or bonded for
in accordance with the procedures in the Subdivision chapter prior to signature of the condominium
survey plat.
. ." _,__'_'~'W"" '._.. __._.._...._
~
~
"
12) That all req~ements of the Ashland Fire Department be complied with prior to the signature of the final/
survey plat/or e issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each new home.". ,/
'----'_.. ..-""',' - "--'---'~" -"-_.._-~-----'----"'--~-'--" -'-, ,-"
13) That required bicycle parking in accordance with the numbers and design specifications described in
chapter 18.92 be identified on the site plan with the building permit, and shall be installed prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
14) That silt fencing be installed adj acent to the flood plain corridor boundary, in accordance with
manufacturer's recommendations, prior to site disturbance or grading that may cause erosion intp the
floodplain,
15) That a tree protection plan be submitted for review by the Tree Commission liaison and approval by the
7
........'..-- -.-."
..
Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall identify the location and
placement of temporary fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of
fill within the drip line shall not exceed 12 inches in height, and the fill shall consist of a sandy
composition, rather than clay, to enhance drainage. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree
protection plan, and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around
the trunk/crown root.
16) That no portion of any unit shall be located upon land within the AsWand flood plain corridor. A portion
of the unit may be cantilevered beyond the floodplain corridor boundary, with all structural supports
located outside the corridor. The finished floor level of all portions of each unit shall be elevated two-
feet above the 100-year base flood elevation. Finished floor elevations shall be noted on the
copdominium plat.
~\'\
17) That the property owners of the AsWey Senior Apartment complex grant the Creekside Condominium
development use of three parking spaces and driveway access in perpetuity. Such right to use the off-site
parking and the existing driveway access must be evidenced by recordation of a vehicle parking and mutual
driveway access easement reviewed and approved by the City of AsWand Legal Department.
.....-........-~--~ ~...-......,.,. ~- ._~ ~,-~..-......~----
,'-"~-~' ~~~"-"- -.
18) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the flood plain corridor shall be physically delineated on
the ground by an Oregon registered surveyor. The boundary shall be permanently staked in order for the City
of Ashland to verify that all units are located at or outside the floodplain corridor.
Planning Commission Approval
Date
~
L
"
. ' )
SITE REVIEW
~ "
, - c, I
;""
roval. The following criteria shall' be used to approve or
AU applicable City ordinances have been met and wjJf be met by t~
proposed development. ~
B. requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
, ~.
C. /Tffe site design complies with the guidelines ~dopte~ by the City Council
" for implementation of this Chap~er. _ .:
-4 . .:-:-; '-'.
l1'liit'adeQuate capacity of City facilities for water. \e",,}r. pa~ed ~ccess
'to-snd'ttffOugn tne -dev'elopment.ele.ctricity-rtff9af.l ~torm draInage'. and
iElu-eqt.ffi'te transportation can and will be provided- ~o ,and through the
S1Jt1tect property. (Ord. 265~, 19911 - - --,--. ' .
_.'~' .....~. .- - -~. ..' ..- - ....-. ....
~-..~_..~' ... ..._--
-..........-.. ~ -. .....
,- -
-.--.-.....- _.~
---..
.-.... ..~-_._-- .---~.- - -
- . ........ -_. -'"
# ....-.-- -_.--.+----.
--- --..---.-......--.
""- .,#
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found in 18.100.020 and are as
follows;
&) 0hat. there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this sit;-J
~!q.h do not apply elsewhere. ~
~ That the Il!ono~al's bearfjt..will be grater than any negative impact" np ~~0
~evelopment of the ;:trlj;:tr.Ant tJS~; and will furth~r the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. <Ord. 2425 51,
1987)
3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. (Ord_ 2775, 1996)
reI( 18.~. Ad....lstratlve v.rill... "". - -... ..elUoe Sta.dards. . .
~ ~lIsU'8uve. ~ance ~ the requirements, of ~is dl.er may be granted with respect to the
requ~en~ of the Site Desagn ~tandanIs adopted under stctioo 18. n.080 if. on the basis of the
appltcation, mvestigation and evidence submitted, all of the folloWing cirCumstances are found to 'exist:
A. Theft is ademonstrJble diffic:ulty in mcetiDg the specific requirements of the Site Design
/i ~ due to a unique or UDUIWII aspect ofCbo pmposod use ofa site.
'~~:::~=~=':;:;:;L:au~a....>
lID ~ variance requested is the .imum varianc:e..tVhicb w:J.w allcviatc the difficu"';> ,
,-
~. -~.
,~-~. "1
. .
'"
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA
..
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued
by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the fOllowing:
Q Th,ough the. application 0' ,he dev._, standa"', 0' this chop,.,.
the POtential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
J'
./
That the applicant has considered, the potential hazards that ~
dever~nt may create ans' implementeG measures to mitigatethe
potentia azards caused bV the development.
'"
..
-..---., ....-................... .._--. .........--_--
.----..
'-'-' .'.-..
.. -...
.
I
\,-.
....."..
~)
".,.
C..:- ,-,-..-- . -, '----.-..., ;D-
.. .~ '\ ;1
---.J "...;
-...
.
\..-...-,-.-.
.'.... ,.. "
\ ,
? .
.......~--
,....--.-.., .~ ..--
".
Ashland OR Municipal Code
CHAPTER 18.92
OFF-STREET PARKING
SECTIONs:
18.92.010 Generally.
18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required.
18.92.025 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking.
18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places.
18.92.040 Bicycle Parking.
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking.
18.92.055 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District.
18.92.060 Limitations, Location, Use of Facilities.
18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements.
18.92.080 Construction.
18.92.090 Alterations and Enlargements.
SECfION 18.91.010 Generally.
In all districts, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected. enlarged, or the use is
changed, off-street parking shall be provided as set forth in this Chapter.
SECfION 18.92.020 Automobile Parking S aces Require
Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required.
I. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following
for accessory residential units:
a. Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.-I space/unit.
b. I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger--1.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units~2.00 spaces/unit.
Q
Multi-fa~wplliJl~
-
CD~4
Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.--I space/unit.
I-bedroom units 500 sa ft Qr lareer--I.50 spaces/unit.
_ 2-berlroom units-1.75 spacesluQit -
3-bedroom or greater units--2.00 spaces/unit.
Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater--One space per unit.
~ -
-
3. Clubs, fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses, dormitories.
Two spaces for each three guest. rooms~ in donnitories, 100 square feet shall be
equivalent to a'guest room.
4, Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or
, manager.
5. Manufactured housing developments. Parking requirements are as established in
Ch~ted 8.84.
6. PerformallceStandards Developments. Parking requirements are as established in
Chapter 18.88.
B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required.
I. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses. One space
per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land area; plus one space
per S,OOO square feet for the excess over 10,000 square feet of gross land aretl; and one
per two employees. II
n_~... , f"'\f'R
Ashland OR Municipal Code
~
J
Bowling AIIc\'s. rhrce spaccs per allcy, plus addlllOnal spaccs lor auxiliary .lCllVlllcs
set fonl1 In tl1 IS sect Ion
Business. general retail, person services. Gcneral - one spacc for 350 square fcel of
gross floor area. Furniture and appliances.. one space per 750 square feet of gross floor
area .
Chapels and mortuaries. One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel.
Omces. Medical and dental - one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area.
General.. one space per 450 square feet of gross floor area.
Restaurants, bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One space per four seats or
one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area, whichever is less.
Skating rinks. One space per 350 sq. ft. of gross building area.
Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, gymnasiums and similar uses. One space per four
seats.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parkin~ spaces are required.
I. Industrial uses, except warehousing. One space per two employees on the largest
shift or for each 700 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less, plus one space
per company vehicle.
2. Warehousing. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two
employees, whichever is gr~ater, plus one,space per company vehicle.
3. Public utilities (gas::w~ter, telephone, etc.), not inchiding business omces:- d~e- - .,
space per two employees"'on 'the'largestsfiift, plus bife spa:Ctrpei"compailY-vehitle;'a" '.., ..
minimum of two spaces is required.
D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following automobile parking
spaces are required.
Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically
defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon
the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data.
Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided
by any particular use in ground surface 10ts shall not exceed the required number of spaces
provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-street. or within the building
footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level
parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable
spaces.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
....._..... __, 8.
9.
E
F
I.
Child care centers having 13 or more children. One space per two employees; a
minimum of two spaces is required,
Churches. One space per four seats.
Golf courses, except miniature. Eight spaces per hole, plus additional spaces for
auxiliary uses set forth in this section. Miniature golf courses -four spa~~s per hole.
Hospitals. Two spaces per patient b~.
Nursing and convalescent homes. One space per three patient beds.
Rest homes, homes for the aged, or assisted living. One space per two patient beds
or one space per apartment unit. : ~
. - . ..-.-......-.....,..-....-.. " ...-
Schools, elementary ~~d junior hfgh~ One ana Oi1e-=h81fspac~ per classroom, qr the
requirements for public a~sem61y areaitiis'sei-forthnereirr. whichever'is greater.
High schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom. plus opfe !;{lace per 10 students
the school isaesigneato accommoaate~'odhneqll'iremeq,ts for.public assembly as set
forth herein, whichever is greater.
Colleges, universities and trade schools. One and one-halfspaces per classroom, plus
one space per five students the school is designed to accommodate. plus requirements
for on-campus student housing.
;}
.-
I~
Page 2 of8
for multi-family development, including orientation, streetscape, landscaping, open space and
building materials. The units adjacent to Siskiyou Boulevard are oriented toward the public street
and off-street parking is situated at the rear of property to the side of structures. Approximately, 70%
of the project site will be landscaped, well in excess of the 25% required by the zoning district.
Given the limited building area on the site, the Commission finds that the plan preserves as many
existing, healthy trees as possible while considering weighing other approval standards and the
safety of future residents. The arborist report provides recommendations for removal based upon an
on-site assessment of individual trees. While 29 trees are proposed for removal, approximately 75
percent of the site (mostly within the flood plain) will be maintained in common open space,
allowing for the retention of the majority of existing trees as well as the planting of additional, more
appropriate species.
2.4 The Commission finds that the approval of the Variances to the rear yard setback and
distance between buildings is justified due to the unusual physiqli constraints of the property.
The physical nature of the property is unusual due to the steep slope along the west side of the
property and the large percentage of the site (approximately 70%) located within the Ashland
Flood Plain Corridor. Of the 1.77- acre site, less than one third can be developed due to physical
constraints. The locations of existing, mature trees further limit choices in site planning and
home placement.
SECTION 3., DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal to construct a 13-unit, cottage-style condominium development, including a Variance to rear yard
setback standards and for distance between buildings is supported by evidence in the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2002-052. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are
found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2002-052 is denied. The following
are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That engineered construction drawings for the installation of all project utilities and street improvements
along Siskiyou Boulevard are provided for review by the Engineering Division and approval by the Staff
Advisor. The final design for frontage improvements shall be consistent with Ashland Local Street
Standards and coordinated with the Oregon Department of Transportation. Street improvements shall
consist of a six -foot bike lane, on-street parking (where noted), curb and gutter, storm drain, seven foot
planting strip and six-foot sidewalk. The Staff Advisor may approve the omission of a planting strip due
to excessive grade adjoining the creek channel, as well as to reduce impacts to existing, healthy trees.
3) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project,
including but not limited to detention ponds and piped systems, be submitted for review and approval by
the departments of Public Works and Planning, prior to issuance ofa building permit
37
,...... --
4) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association be provided at the time of signature
of the Condominium Plat and shall describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all common area
landscaping, pathways, planting strips and street trees.
5) That street trees, I per 30 feet of street frontage, be installed along the frontage of Siskiyou Boulevard.
The Staff Advisor, based upon the location of existing trees and areas of severe slope may approve
exceptions to street tree location and spacing. Street trees with root barriers to be installed within the
planting strip prior to the certificate of occupancy. Root barrier design, if required, shall be submitted for
review and approval at the time building permit submission.
6) That all easements for public walkways, sewer, water, electric, and streets shall be indicated on the
condominium survey plat as proposed by the applicant and required by the City of Ashland.
7) That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan and irrigation system plan incorporating
the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission for all common areas and planting strips be
submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit.
8) That a site, size and species specific floodplain restoration plan, as noted in the application, be provided
by the project landscape architect and arborist for review by the Tree Commission Staff liaison and
approval of the Staff Advisor. Landscaping improvements to the floodplain corridor shall be installed
before the issuance of certificate of occupancy for more than 50 percent of the units.
9) That installation of fencing is prohibited within the floodplain corridor. All fencing along the public
walkway (running north to south) shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet.
10) That a final grading plan accompanies the building permits and be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit.
11) That all common open space improvements (i.e. landscaping, irrigation, etc.) be installed or bonded for
in accordance with the procedures in the Subdivision chapter prior to signature of the condominium
survey plat.
12) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department be complied with prior to the signature of the final
survey plat or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each new home.
13) That required bicycle parking in accordance with the numbers and design specifications described in
chapter 18;92 be identified on the site plan with the building permit, and shall be installed prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
14) That silt fencing be installed adjacent to the flood plain corridor boundary, in accordance with
manufacturer's recommendations, prior to site disturbance or grading that may cause erosion into the
floodplain.
15) That a tree protection plan be submitted for review by the Tree Commission liaison and approval by the
31
Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall identify the location and
placement of temporary fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of
fill within the drip line shall not exceed 12 inches in height, and the fill shall consist of a sandy
composition, rather than clay, to enhance drainage. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree
protection plan, and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around
the trunk/crown root.
16) That no portion of any unit shall be located upon land within the Ashland flood plain corridor. A portion
of the unit may be cantilevered beyond the floodplain corridor boundary, with all structural supports
located outside the corridor. The finished floor level of all portions of each unit shall be elevated two-
feet above the 100-year base flood elevation. Finished floor elevations shall be noted on the
condominium plat.
17) That the property owners of the Ashley Senior Apartment complex g~ant the Creekside Condominium
development use of three parking spaces and driveway access in perpetuity. Such right to use the off-site
parking and the existing driveway access must be evidenced by recordation of a vehicle parking and mutual
driveway access easement reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland Legal Department.
18) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the flood plain corridor shall be physically delineated on
the ground by an Oregon registered surveyor. The boundary shall be permanently staked in order for the City
of Ashland to verify that all units are located at or outside the floodplain corridor.
B~
(70 -CJ2.-
Date
3'
Molnar said, at this point, Staff would still recommend moving this along to the Council and mention the types of items that
have come up that still need consideration.
Swales said he understood that Shavey was under the impression the ordinance would be in addition to the other requirements.
It isn't in addition because if it was in addition, it would say "and" not "or" under D.3. Molnar said the main reason they went
to "or" is that they were concerned under the current state statute that you can't mandate a land use approval based upon having
to construct or provide units to a certain family income level. Someone could stilI get a zone change by showing they meet one
of the other criteria.
Swales has a concern that the testimony from two of the developers who don't think they are getting enough with the ordinance
modifications and it wouldn't be worth their while to build affordable housing,
Gardiner has the same concern. Will the ordinance achieve the goal of producing affordable housing? He is hearing testinlony
that it may not do that.
Shavey said the reason they put in the option is so developers could give a portion of the land for affordable housing to
somebody like the Land Trust or a non-profit housing developer. The Housing Commission recognizes that a profit-motivated
developer has a track they go down and a product that they know. They recognize that in order to meet 60 to 80 percent of
median, people aren't going to do that unless there is something that requires them to do it dr unless they are mission driven.
So, the option existed to transfer a sufficient amount of property to cover these units to somebody who would go after the
grants, etc. She invited developers and builders and the Planning Commissioners to the Housing Commission so they can
discuss this.
McLaughlin believes the Commission does not have to answer to aU questions tonight. It is more important to get this
ordinance correct and take proper testimony and reflect it in some amendments. Perhaps with some assistance from the
Housing Commission and based on tonight's testimony, they could move it to the Council with comments.
Kistler said he stands corrected. He got an education from the builder/developer point of view in annexation.
Chapman is not comfortable moving this on to the Council based on his own reservations. He would like to be satisfied that
the ordinance is going to have the intended effect. He should attend a Housing Commission meeting.
Dale offered his services to work with the Housing Commission to craft an ordinance.
The rest of the Commissioners felt the same as Chapman. The next process would be to bring it back again. McLaughlin may
arrange for a Study Session.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
~PLANNING ACTION 2002-052 IS A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 13-UNIT, corr AGE STYLE CONDOMINIUM
llEVELOPMENT, INCLUDE A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR "OEVELOPMENT" WITHIN THE
FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR.
2275 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
APPlICANT: ALAN PAROEE
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Momar explained this proposal is to construct 13 cottage style condominium units. The applicant is also requesting a Physical
Constraints Permit to allow "development" within the City of Ashland Floodplain Corridor. The application also includes a
Variance to the rear yard setback standards for distance between buildings. The criteria are included and notice was sent to
property owners within 200 feet of the project.
This is a 1.8 acre site on Siskiyou Boulevard zoned High-Density Multi-Family. The most notable feature on the property is
Clay Creek, which runs through the property. There are numerous trees near the creek environment and outside the floodplain
as well. There is a single-family residence located on the property along with two cottages, a barn and a storage shed. The
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
AUGUST 13, 2002
4
I-ftJ
plan is to remove the structures and build 13 detached units.
Auto access to the property is via the existing 20 foot driveway that already connects to Siskiyou Boulevard through Ashley
Senior Center. There is a letter of agreement in the application and as part of the record, the property owner of the project has
agreed to work out a mutual access agreement with this project and to remove three parking spaces at Ashley Senior Center.
The use permit for the driveway and the three parking spaces will have to be recorded as a perpetual use agreement. There are
21 parking spaces provided, designated in three areas. Fifteen spaces are within the boundary of the site, three are within the
adjacent and reconfigured senior apartment parking, and there are two parking credits along Siskiyou Boulevard. A public
sidewalk will be installed for pedestrian circulation as well as a walkway through the project. The City has the right-of-way to
Jaquelyn.
Molnar said this has been a work in progress. There are a couple of staff reports. One of the main issues is the development in
proximately to the floodplain corridor. The current proposal states that none of the condominium units will encroach into the
city's floodplain corridor. All the structural components, foundations, and supporting piers will be at the city's floodplain
corridor line or in back of it. Units 8 and 9 will have a section of the floor level that will cantilever out beyond the corridor but
the supporting piers will be outside the floodplain. There would no longer be a Physical Constraints Review Permit because as
Staff understands it, no development, as defmed in the ordinance, is occurring within the floodplain corridor.
Molnar stated another issue came up with the Fire Department regarding adequate frre apparatus access to the back units and
adequate turnaround in the parking area. The Fire Department has met with the applicant ahd a new parking plan has been
submitted. The current parking area for Ashley Senior Center has been reconfigured for the parking spaces, making slight
changes to the curb alignment at the north to allow for frre apparatus turnaround. Dave Hard, Assistant Fire Chief, has
reviewed this plan and has said it meets the requirements for serving the project.
Molnar said there has been a lot of discussion about tree protection and removal. The application has identified approximately
95 living trees on the site. An arborist did a general inventory of the trees in the area of development and the report is
contained in the packet. Approximately 29 trees are scheduled for removal. Of the 29 trees, approximately 20 are riparian and
a lot are the black cotton. Generally, when there has been a greater level of housing around those trees, it has been the position
of Staff and the Tree Commission that they are not the best trees to be in proximity to housing units. Of the 29 trees, there are
six oak trees to be removed due to their health. Approximately 75 percent of the site is to be maintained in common open
space. There are a lot of trees being retained. The applicant has submitted a conceptual planting plan.
Molnar explained that the flfSt Variance is a request to reduce the rear yard setback from approximately ten feet to seven feet
for the two back units. Sixty five percent of the site is in the floodplain, limiting the area of development, putting constraints
on design, spacing of the units to maintain further spacing from the drip line of trees, and location of some of the trees. While
this is a reduction of the rear yard setback, the orientation of this parcel is south to north and will abut the side yard of the
property to the north. There is a large bam structure that is less than a ten foot setback. Staff generally supports the Variance
in terms of unique or unusual physical aspects that pertain to the property.
The other Variance pertains to distance between buildings. The requirement is to have a distance half the sum of the building
height. The average distance is IS 1/2 feet. They have been treating the project more like a single family project because the
cottages are detached rather than multi-unit structures.
Overall, Staff is recommending approval with 17 attached Conditions. They are suggesting an additional condition indicating
that prior to issuance of a building permit that the floodplain corridor line be delineated on the ground by the surveyor so they
can certify that all portions of that building are either at or outside the floodplain corridor.
Briggs asked if the applicant needed a solar waiver. Molnar said initially it appeared they would need a solar waiver. They
currently have been in discussions with the property owner to the north and have indicated that owner would be amenable to
granting a waiver. If the project is approved as is, they will have to apply for solar waivers or alter the rooflines to comply
with solar.
Swales wondered with regard to distance between buildings where you draw the line with the number of units the applicant is
choosing and the design they have chosen and whether Of not this is willfully self-imposed. Molnar said just the act of
proposing a design that doesn't comply with the standards does not mean it is willfully self-imposed. That refers to criteria A
(unique or unusual circumstances). Were the unique or unusual circumstances self-imposed? In this case, the applicant is
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
AUGUST 13, 2002
5
41
"....,-...." "",,_.- ~
making the argument the floodplain creates some unique or unusual circumstances. It is a natural feature.
McLaughlin said if this were to develop as individual lots under the Performance Standards as individual lots, the setbacks
would be fine. It is not varying from a significant standard.
Swales wondered why the loft areas are not counted as bedrooms. Molnar said that is a judgment call and open to
interpretation.
Swales asked about the joint use of facilities. The lot boundary is over the line. If the applicants had not done it this way, they
wouldn't have sufficient access. With all the changes in the parking, changing of the curb, removal of the tree, joint access,
where does it cross the line that this is a joint project? Molnar said the landscaping plan shows from three to five areas where
trees can be planted along the east property line that would compensate for the where the shading is going to be reduced from
the existing cottonwoods.
Swales wondered if the barn is to be removed, doesn't it have to be reused on the site? McLaughlin said a debris management
plan is required. There is a separate permit for this. It does not require it to be reused on the site.
Swales noted that he was at the original Tree Commission meeting and heard testimony from the applicant and Tree
Commission regarding the legality of the pond. Is it a legal pond? McLaughlin said Swales needs to make sure he further
explains if he heard anything that would have influenced his decision such as the pond or other issues so the applicant has a
chance to respond. Swales said the pond issue came up. The only other item he heard was opposition from some of the
resident of the senior center concerned about the loss of tree buffering along their mutual boundaries.
Chapman asked how the on-street parking spaces will tie in. How will they effect the sidewalks and bike lanes? Molnar said
there is quite a bit of right-of-way. Included in the Conditions of approval: That the street improvements have to be designed
consistent with the City's local Street Standards and coordinated with ODOT. They will consist ofa six foot bike lane, on..
street parking where noted on the site plan, curb and gutter, storm drain, seven foot planting strip and six foot sidewalk. The
planting strip could be omitted in certain areas due to excessive grade. They are planning on a bike lane across the frontage.
Amarotico wondered if a span could be built from one side of the floodplain to other and have a residence entirely inside the
floodplain. Molnar said, in theory, you could. Our ordinance is silent to cantilevering above.
PUBLIC HEARING
ALAN PARDEE, applicant, landscape architect and design team lead. He introduced his design team. MIKE THORNTON,
Civil Engineer, PHIL FRAZEE, arborist, Devian Aguirre, Sage Development.
DEVIAN AGUIRRE, 183 Lincoln Street, said the site has an island of green surrounded on both sides by very large block
buildings and large parking lots. The demographics support this type of development. They think moderate cottage housing is
valuable in Ashland, particularly when it comes to the issue of affordability and complexity of design and physical constraints.
The footprint covers no more than 600 square feet. It is sensitive to the land and trees and it is easier to build a foundation.
They have been able to come to a cooperative understanding with the neighbor (senior facility) that has been there for 13 years.
Rather than trying to disrupt an existing parking lot or creating an undersized access, they decided to cooperate and put
together a shared access agreement along with a reciprocal parking agreement. They created three additional spaces. The
reconfiguring of the parking plan takes the existing senior parking lot, widening many of the parking spaces to allow seniors
wider parking spots. They have tried to mitigate the harm and the damage they may cause and the benefits will bear out.
PARDEE explained that at this time, the existing parking lot does not provide legal fire access to the senior housing facility.
The changes the applicant has made will provide legal access to the senior facility.
All the units are outside the floodplain.
They have met with the Tree Commission and they have had two consulting arborists on the site and they agreed the trees
slated for removal need to be removed.
AGUIRRE said with regards to demolishing the barn, it is their intentto salvage the barn by re-milling it board by board. '!bey
ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
AUGUST 13, 2002
6
JI.~
will attempt to certify the timbers. They intend to use all the siding in decks and areas and other applicable areas.
She said she has an application in to the state for approval for the pond. They are doing research to see if the pond is legal. It
will be legal before they start the project.
Briggs asked about the pedestrian access through the project. Aguirre said she is sensitive to the possible pedestrian
encroachment that might not be acceptable to the seniors. They've had discussions with the city about creating a barrier that
allows pedestrian access but might not allow skateboards or bicycles.
Briggs mentioned Units 8 and 9 that will be cantilevered. If the sidewalk were to be parallel with the parking, would it be
possible to bring those two units away from the floodplain a few feet? Pardee said they are hoping to provide landscaping
close to the parking area. Briggs would hope to bring the cantilevers out of the floodplain by straightening the sidewalk and
use some sort of vertical screening. Units II and 12 are seven feet from the north boundary line. Have they thought about
making those slightly smaller? Aguirre said the got a solar waiver today. Aguirre said it has always been their intent to slope
the rear of those units down.
Pardee said he would prefer not to encroach any closer to the Douglas flf at the south of Unit 6. In order to move Units II and
12 three feet further from the northern property line, he would have to bump all the units to the south.
KEN DEHAAS, 230 I Siskiyou Boulevard, #318, said he lives in Ashley Senior Center. H~ is one of six in attendance tonight
that favors the project. There are a lot of problems with cottonwoods and he agrees they should be removed. The developer
could develop high rises. He believes the owner is doing a minimal number of units. He likes the design. They are working
with some complicated design constraints. He believes the development will be an asset to the residents and the whole
community.
TOM FRANTZ, 1314 Seena Lane, said he built townhouses adjacent to the site and he feels the cottage setting is a great
precedent. Townhouses have large walls.
DON RIST, 250 Jay Drive, Talent, OR, Windemere VanVleet Realty, said he had the property listed four and one-half years.
It is a hard piece of property to develop. Aguirre contacted the owner of the neighboring property and worked out an
agreement with them. Rist is hopeful this project will be approved.
DOROTHY CARNAGHI, 2301 Siskiyou Boulevard, #302, said she is a resident of Ashley Senior Center. She would like to
see the city buy this property for a park. The flood took out the walls of the apartment across the street. It is ridiculous to build
there. The tree behind the garbage container will have to come down for fife access. Fire trucks and ambulances and garbage
trucks come in now. Another arborist said the trees could be there another 20 years.
HEINZ LEWIN, 2301 Siskiyou Boulevard, #108, stated that as a resident of Ashley Senior Center, some of the elderly become
very emotional when their environment will be impacted. He is opposed to the development. He hopes the Fire Chief will
review the proposal again. Where is the applicant's garbage container? Installing the turnaround will require removal of a
healthy tree to provide two more parking spaces. There are no parking spaces for larger vehicles, so they are forced to block
the traffic. Has the applicant provided for storm drains that do not go into the riparian area?
Amarotico moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded and approved.
DON SKILLMAN, 935 Jaquelyn, said he opposes the project, however, with the addition of a couple of conditions, he could
become a proponent. As long as the City requires a registered surveyor's certificate as to the location of the floodplain and if
the project is outside the floodplain area, his objections are moot In addressing the seven foot setback, he believes there is 400
feet from the rear line to Siskiyou Boulevard, and they should be able to pick up 36 inches incrementally. The reduced setback
impacts the rear neighbor at the rear property line. He does not see a need for a pedestrian access to Jaquelyn because the
residents on Jaquelyn, Diane, and Barbara don't walk that way anyway. They walk along Diane out to Clay and up to
Siskiyou, the shorter distance. There might be a possibility of undesirable affects by opening it up to foot traffic.
This property has been responsible for the floods from 1997 back to 1964. The lots on the west side of Jaquelyn flood their
back yards. The floodplain slopes from the creek to the east so when the creek overflows, the water doesn't go down the creek
channel. It makes a separate flow in the back of where these units will be located and the houses already in existence. A very
ASHlAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
AUGUST 13, 2002
7
4B
r
slight modification of the creek bank just below the pond could mitigate most of that problem. Also, the culvert in the fill is a
great deal smaller than the culvert that ODOT installed under Siskiyou Boulevard. Any debris that makes it through the big
culvert isn't going to make it through the little one.
He believes this development can be done in such a way to become a very strong asset to neighbors and the city, particularly if
his concerns can be addressed. He has concerns for the seniors that will be losing the large cottonwoods. The Commission can
not only specify trees, but caliper. They could save a 20 year period for those trees to grow up effectively.
DENNIS MELLEKER, 2909 Diane Street, stated he has strong concerns about the pond. He would like to know ifFEMA
standards are going to be studied and looked at for the pond construction. What will ensure it won't wash down the hill to their
house? They sustained about $10,000 damage in the flood. The pond was rebuilt in 1997 and he doesn't think there is any
reinforcement.
Molnar stated two letters were received in support of this application from HARRY AND LESLIE SPENCER, 945 Jaquelyn
Street and CANDY WOODING, 894 Blackberry Lane.
Staff Response
Swales wondered if we were talking about the Ashland floodplain. Molnar affrrmed and said it is more conservative than
FEMA.
Briggs asked if anything could be done to make sure the pond flow will not impact downstream residents. Molnar said it is
sized for a 100 year flood.
Briggs asked about trucks parking in the driveway. McLaughlin said on the couple of site visits he has had, there have been a
couple of trucks blocking only part of the parking lot. Deliveries occur on a short-term basis. He hasn't seen any conflicts
with that.
Rebuttal
Pardee said the tree that Lewin mentioned is staying and the planter will be enlarged. They have added another lane. There is
a designated area fo~ garbage and recycling.
MIKE THORNTON, Thornton Engineering, 1231 Disk Drive, Medford, OR 97501, said the Fire Department is not happy with
the accessway configuration. They are proposing to modify it to satisfy the Fire Department.
Aguirre said it is true from her research on the ponds that at peak flow periods, the flood channel jumps at the lowest point.
She said the peak flow diverts off the creek path and flows out into the wider floodplain that is below the proposed units.
Again, they are making application to make the pond legal. They are not opposed to removing the culvert.
Swales asked about the upstairs bedroom. Aguirre said the space is ancillary. It is a bonus space for office use or TV room.
Gardiner proposed adding Condition 18 that prior to the issuance of the building permit, the floodplain corridor will be
certified. Aguirre agreed.
Briggs wondered if she would be willing to take care of the 36 inches. Aguirre said they could put the units closer together or
they will lose a Douglas fir.
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Chapman moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. The motion was seconded and approved.
Chapman moved to approve PA2oo2-054 with the 18 Conditions as stated. Amarotico seconded the motion.
Briggs is upset about the seven foot rear yard setback. She believes it is self-imposed. Swales agreed that it is self-imposed.
Amarotico suggested moving Units12 and 13 toward Siskiyou Boulevard and then live with just Unit 11 needing a Variance.
Gardiner took a straw vote on leaving the rear yard Variance as it has been requested and everyone favored except Swales and
Briggs.
ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
AUGUST 13, 2002
8
J./t./-
-.........-
The motion carried with Swales voting "no".
PLANNING ACTION 2002-079
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A LOT INTO TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 145 MANZANITA WITH BOTH
PROPERTIES HAVING ACCESS TO MANZANITA THROUGH THE USE OF A PRIVATE FLAG DRIVEWAY.
APPLICANT: GLENN AND GAIL BERK
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Harris reported the Land Partition was administratively approved and subsequently called up by three of the neighbors. The
flag lot is one-half acre in size. A portion of the flag drive turnaround is on the lot. There are eight trees. Staff believes they
have met the criteria for approval. The applicants have shown a future development plan for 145 Manzanita. The minimum lot
size has been met as well as the minimum dimensions. The landscape architect is recommending the removal of the apple tree
due to its poor health. There are adequate public facilities and utilities. Due to the slope constraints the property owner will be
required to sign in favor of future sidewalk improvements. Staff has recommended approval with 13 Conditions.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, said they only had a problem with Condition 12 (sidewalk). The owner has no
problem signing in favor of a LID for future sidewalks, but would request deferring of the frontage until the LID is initiated
and designed. At this time they would rather not dedicate this portion of land.
JOHN HASSEN, 717 Murphy Road, Medford, OR, applicant's representative, asked to reserve time for rebuttal.
Staff Response
McLaughlin said they have never deferred a dedication. As part of the partition, when the survey is done, is the time to have
the dedication completed. Otherwise, it would have to be resurveyed.
Kistler asked why the proposal was called up. Harris said the property owner to the north is concerned about shading a pool,
another neighbor felt it infringed on quality of life and concern about construction noise, and the neighbor to the northwest had
concerns regarding view. They have been made Conditions of approval.
Rebuttal
Giordano said the owners and applicant would go along with Conditionl2.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Swales moved to approve PA2002-079 with the attached Conditions. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.
OTHER
Mclaughlin announced there would be a Study Session in two weeks. The topic will be "big box" ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at II :00 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
IIIHUTES
AUGUST 13, 2002
9
i.fS-
.........--.... --.-.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
October 4,2002
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner - City of Ashland //lA L..----'
David Hard, Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal V fiT
2275 Siskiyou Project
This memorandum documents that a revised parking lot plan for this project and the adjoining
AsWey Senior Apartments 230 I Siskiyou Blvd were submitted on August 2, 2002 for my review.
On August 6, 2002 I completed the review and sent bye-mail the following comment.
"Bill,
I have reviewed the revised parking plan for this project and the adjacent AsWey Senior Center.
It is now in compliance with fire apparatus access standards.
I do need to confirm that the fire hydrant is still going in the island at Unit 7.
Thanks, Dave"
I have not received confirmation that the Federal Government has approved the shared driveway
agreement but believe this is a condition of approval from the Planning Commission Findings. I
understand the fire hydrant will be in the island at Unit 7, this will be confirmed when
construction plans are submitted for a building permit.
cc. File
Keith Woodley, Fire Chief
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 Siskiyou Blvd,
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
4-,
rA'
.\. ,/----
-\.~ 1'" ___ _
l m / ',l------', L . .:::!
~. <D' c
)J <D '\ <z> c
- .J J A ~ C 'IT 32
U 18'-l --2Z'=O" -16'-0" 18'-0"- 22'-0" ~18'-O"-
h (l),t> . v 26 .
ij',4 ~ ! "" 2 c
__~V<l> r'l_ 3 c
/l 4 c
5 c
C@
I-- i-c'" ~
C@
INTI! C~ -...... r--
~ \r \ ~1 C~ 1:: 19
"III r 18 !
.- I. 11 C 17)
~ p-~ j~ J /,~2 C .-4
L _ ~ y 25:'
. @~, .\
, ~ "".. ---
\NT ~ (13
.....: ~//~
-+<>1 ~\ . 22'-{)" ~ 18:~
? @'\ \'. 15
-~ V ///// @
16 I.
l"~
~~'l
",a' l..,
.......
\
f! r '"3-
~~@/!.J I
J
J I
~
,
_ A / ,",
]~1: ~:'"
~ ~
~
~ i
;?(
~-'Jr
-r-::
....
8
INT7
l\
-
~
\ J
V V v v v~.'. V-V"~
." ~ " ',y.- 20'-0" 53 C
"NEWCURBAUGNMEHT ~
v
k
jIi r\. -."
.
~ f-
~ . ~ -~ 1 1\ 1-/' c
~~ ~~
~-_ ~'>..O-n ...~
, ,\~ ~~~~~---
~ ~~~ - ~~~
&pmo ~~.
~14>
It'
6 C
1 C
8 C
It
INTI
~ 20'-0"
l~v
l
.-J
.-.o"lIIo..
\j/
n r
-
25
24
23
22
21 IypicaJ
l'll this row
'iN!
wide
,28
~
~
f
J141
34
35 C
36 C
31 C
.
3lI C
39 C
40 C
41 C
42 C
v///./
43
44
W/h
LEGEND
55 C
C 52
56
C 51
C 50 S1
C 49 58
C 48 59
47 50
...18'-0" 25'-{)" .L18'-O" _
46 . 61
45 62
ASHlEY SENIOR HOUSING
CREEKSIDE PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 21 (includes 3 spaces from
Ashley and 2 on-street credits)
21 ASHLEY PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 62 (gross total 65 with
3 spaces provided to Creekside)
COMPACT PARKING SPACES
Number of compact spaces:
CREEKSIDE - 8
ASHLEY - 31
PARKING PLAN:
CREEKSIDE conAIES
DD ASHLEY SENIOR HOUSING
SCALE 1- = 40....
+7
"r"
,0//
/?
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC -tRING on the following
request with respect to the ASH LAlli --.AND USE ORDINANCE
will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on
August 13, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER,
1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either
in pe<son or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the
land Use Board of Appeals (lUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance
criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to lUBA on that
criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to
proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission
to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the applic~all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteri:~ "vailable for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for
inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,
if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department. City
Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from t'1e applicant and
those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after
the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel
free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-
552,2041. Our TTY phone number is 1,800,735-2900
~
/
/
I
,,/ !-
/ ~~
NOTE: This P~anning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on August 8,2002 in the
Council Chambers (Jury Room) located at 1175 East Main Street at 5:00p.m.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-052 is a request for Site Review approval for a 13-unit, cottage style
condominium development, including a Physical Constraints Review Permit to allow for
Mdevelopment" within the Floodplain Corridor, for the property located at 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard.
The application includes a Variance to rear yard requirements (10 feet required, 7.0 feet
proposed), and for distance between buildings. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density
Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 14 CB; Tax Lot: 3600.
APPLICANT: Alan Pardee '
Jj-t
SIl E ReVIeW
/~
" '
A.
B.
All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
The site design complies with the ,guidelines ~dopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chap~er.
That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, pa~ed ~ccess
to"and througfi the development, electricity, urban storm drainage', and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and throug~ the
subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991)
c.
o.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found in 18.100.020 and are as
follows:
1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not apply elsewhere.
2) That the proposal's benefits will be grater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1,
1987)
3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
SECfION 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards.
An ~dministrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the
reqUll'emeots of the Site Design Standards adopted imder Section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the
application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to 'exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. ~val of the variance is conSistent with tho stated purpose of tho Site Design and Use Chapter,
D. The variance ~ is tho minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
~q
.,-
, ....
;.. --~-~\
PHYSICAL AND ENVtRONMENTAl CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA
18.62.040 ADDroval and Permit Reauired
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued
by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter,
the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered, the POtential hazards that the
development may create and implemented measure:; to mitigate the
potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the
adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be
considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor
or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the
surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted
by the land Use Ordinance.
t;'o
~
Ir-
S-I
391E14BC8218, PA2002-052
ALAMEDA GEORGE K/SUSAN J
1551-6 VALLEY VIEW
WEED, CA
96094
391E14CB4800, PA2002-052
BAINE WILLIAM TRUSTEE FBO
2253 SISKIYOU BLVD
ASHLAND,OR
97520
391E14CB4200, PA2002-052
WOODING CAROL G
PO BOX 219
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39IEI4BC8001. PA2002-052
SKILLMAN DON CILAURlE J
PO BOX 1120
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14BD1700, PA2002-052
PRICER JA YIMARGARET COAN
211 OHIO ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CBlOl, PA2002-052
FINANCIAL PACIFIC INC
20285 N W CORNELL RD
HILLSBORO, OR
97124
391E14CB5100, PA2002-052
WASSERMAN LANCE M
2225. SISKIYOU BLVD
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CB3800, PA2002-052
HANSEN GAYLE A
878 BLACKBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14BC8219, PA2002-052
HILL MICHELLE L
POBOX 683
YREKA, CA
98097
391E14BC3300, PA2002-052
LAX HARRYIBARBARA
915 JAQUELYN ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CA1500, PA2002-052
ALBERT DONALD J
950 JACQUELYN ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39lE14CB4100, PA2002-052
CA TROPA DANIEL VIEVEL YN M
2930 ROCKA WAY A VB #78
OCEANSIDE, NY
11572
391E14CA1400, PA2002-052
RUBENSTEIN KA THLEEN'H
PO BOX 574
ASHLAND,OR
97520
39lE14BC8002, PA2002-052
SPENCER LESLIE M!HARRY H
945 JAQUEL YN ST
ASHLAND,OR
97520
391E14CA7800, PA2002-052
ROSE ROBIN
2300 SISKIYOU BLVD
ASHLAND,OR
97520
391EI4CA1300, PA2002-052
FITZPATRICK EILEEN
960 JAQUEL YN ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CB3600, PA2002-052
FREDINBURG ROBERT ROGER
PO BOX 5243
CENTRAL POINT, OR
97502
391EI4BC8212, PA2002-052
HATFIELD MARK
846 BLACKBERRY LN
ASHLAND,OR
97520
391E14CB4900, PA2002-052
KELLY ANGELEA
2249 SISKIYOU BLVD
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CA1200, PA2002-052
LAZARO MARGARITA E
POBOX 1347
ASHLAND, OR
97520
5~
39lEl4CAl600, PA2002-052
ASHLAND INVEST GROUP II
SUITE #108
AUBURN, CA
95603
391E14BC8200, PA2002-052
COMINOS SANTOIMICHELE
P o BOX 492
TALENT, OR
97540
391EI4BC8000, PA2002-052
SCARMINACHMR~GINAC
180 OHIO
ASHLAND, OR
97520
'39IEI4CB4300, PA2002-052
STEIN GERALD W TRUSTEE
806 CYPRESS POINf LOOP
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CB4400, PA2002-052
DEGROODTHARLAN
706 OAK KNOLL DR
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CB4600, PA2002-052
FRANTZ THOMAS W
1314 SEENA LN
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39 lE 14BD 1600, PA2002-052
GAIL JAMES R/SANDRA H
2934 BARBARA ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CB3700, PA2002-052
HEINE JULIE L
874 BLACKBERRY LN
ASHLAND,OR
97520
391EI4CB3900,PA2002-052
LAUGHLIN JOHN B
882 BLACKBERRY LN
ASHLAND,OR
97520
391E14BC8209, PA2002-052
LOCKETT KlMBERLEYIDA VII> OLl
853 BLACKBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E14CA1700, PA2002-052
MANNING DENNA TAYLOR
725 RDY AL AYE - OFFICE
MEDFORD, OR
97504
391E14CB4700, PA2002-052
PASCAL ROY W/MARISA
305 ELAN YILLAGE LN #122
SAN JOSE, CA
95134
P A2002-052
SHIRLEY HOYELMAN
2301 SISKIYOU BY #206
ASHLAND,OR
97520
P A #2002-052
ALAN PARDEE
POBOX 1651
MT SHASTA, CA
96067
P A #2002-052
TIlORNTON ENGINEERING
A TIN: MICHAEL P TIlORNTON
1236 DISK DRIVE, SUITE #1
MEDFORD, OR 97501
P A #2002-052
TOM FERERROIFERERRO GEOLOGIC
760 OAK ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A2002-052
KEN DEHAAS
2301 SISKIYOU BY #318
ASHLAND,OR
97520
391EI4BC8213, PA2002-052
ZARO LEO ANGELO/GAIL B
850 BLACKBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR
97520
P A2oo2-052
HEINZ LEWIN
2301 SISKIYOU BY #108
ASHLAND, OR
97520
P A2002-052
DOROTHY CARNAGHI
2301 SISKIYOU BY #302
ASHLAND,OR
97520
P A #2002-052
SAGE DEVELOPMENT
% POBOX 1651
MT SHASTA, CA
96067
P A #2002-052
U FRIAR & ASSOC
816 W 8TH ST
MEDFORD, OR 97501
P A #2002-052
ARBOR WEST
A1TN: PHIL FRAZEE
PO BOX 453
EAGLE POINT, OR 97524
S-3
391E14CB4000, PA2002-052
NEWBERRY LAWRENCE H JR
886 BLACKBERRY LN
ASHLAND, OR
97520
P A2002-052
BARBARA BROWN
2301 SISKIYOU BY #304
ASHLAND, OR
97520
P A2002-052
MANAGER
2301 SISKIYOU BY
ASHLAND, OR
97520
P A #2002-052
SAGE DEVELOPMENT LLC
183 LINCOLN ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
JAY DELAPP P A #2002-052
% RURAL DEVELOPMENT
573 PARSONS DR, STE #103
MEDFORD, OR 97501
48
.".....,.,--
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Addendum II
August 13, 2002
PLANNING ACTION: 2002-052
APPLICANT: Sage Development LLC
LOCATION: 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family (20 du/acre)
REQUEST: Site Review approval for a 13-unit cottage-style condominium development,
including a Physical Constraints Permit to allow "development" within the City of Ashland
Floodplain Corridor. The application includes a Variance to rear yard setback standards
and for distance between buildings.
I. Relevant Facts and New Information
Changes to the site plan
The revised application reduces the total number of units from 14 to 13. The total
off-street needed has been reduced from 23 spaces to 21 spaces. The site plan
identifies required project parking within the boundary of the site (15 spaces),
within the adjacent and reconfigured senior apartment parking lot (three spaces) and
through credits along Siskiyou Boulevard (two-credits).
Revisions to flo° dplain boundary
The initial staff report noted that roughly sixty percent of the property lies within
the City of Ashland floodplain corridor. The corridor boundaries, adopted in 1989,
are wider and encompass an area considerably larger than the FEMA 100-year
boundary developed in the early 1980's.
In the initial plan, the applicant retained Ferrero Geologic to determine the 100-year
Planning Action: 2002-052 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
Applicant: Sage Development LLC . Page 1 of ! l
Ashland Ol~ l\1unil.'ipal Code
S~N Ill.92.025 'redit for On-strect Automobile Parkinl'_
...
e amounl of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following credit provided for
on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces up 10 iour
credits, thcreafter onc space credit for cach on-sll'cet parking space,
B On-street parking shall follow the established configuration of existing on-street parking, except
that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval oft he Public Works Director,
taking into account traffic flows and street design, with the parking spaces designed in accord
with the standards on file with the Public Works Department. The following shall constitute an
on-street parking space:
I. Parallel parking, each 24 feet of uninterrupted curb.
2. 45 degree diagonal, each.13 feet of uninterrupted curb.
ctJ
Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use whi~h requires the parking.
Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured aldng the curb of any comer
or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking configuration that violates any law or
standard of the City or State.
Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the arterial or
collector is greater in width than the minimums established by the Street Standards in Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S 14. 1999)
coun e t at are WI I
-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used exclusively by that use, but
shall be available for general public use at all times. No signage or actions limiting general
ublic use of on-street spaces shall be permitted.
C.
D,
E
SECTION 18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places.
The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following:
Total in Parking Lot
1 to 25
26 to 50
5 I to 75
76 to 160
101 to 150
1 5 1 to 200
201 to 300
301 to 400
401 to 500
Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.
Required Disabled Person Parking spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of
Oregon, includingminimum widths, adjacent aisles. and permanent markings. Disabled Person Parking space
designs are included at the end of this chapter.
.'
SECTION 18.92.040 Bicycle Parking.
A. All uses. with the exception of dclached single-family residences and uses in the C-l-D zone.
shall provic;1e a minimum oftwo sheltered bike parking spaces.
B. , Every residential use of tw6, units or more per structure. and not containing a garage. shall
provide bicycle parking spaces as follows:
Multi-Family Residential: One sheltered space per studio and I-bedroom unit
1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit
2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit
Senior Housing: One sheltered space per 8 units (8()oA, of the occupants_are 55 or
o/deo I~ '
Ashland OR Municipal Code
C. III addilion, all uscs whicl1 rcquire off slreel parking. cxcept as spec1fically noted. shall provide
one bicycle parking space for every 5 required aula parking spaces. fractional spaces shall be
rounded up to the next wnole spaGe, Fifty percent of the bicycle ItlU"I\~spaces required shall'.
be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be located in proximity to the uses they are --.'
intended to serve. (Ord. 2697 S I. 1993)
D. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a minimum of one
bicycle parking space for every five auto parking spaces.
E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered bicycle parking
space for every five students.
F. Colleges, universities, and trade schools shall provide one bicycle parking space for every five
required auto parking spaces, of which one halfis to be sheltered.
G. No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased, however, a
refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike parking rental business.
H. The required bicycle parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing residential building
or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of dwelling units,.or when a non-
residential use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating'capacity, or change in use.
1. Bicycle Parking Design Standards .
I. The sal ient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists and that
it provides suffici~nt security from theft and damage.
\. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways:
~-
'a.
b.
Providing a bicycle storage room, bicyCle lockers, orracksitlside. the buildiqg.
Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an acc:essory parking' ~tnictuCe,
und~.mc:aUl an awning or marquee, or outside the main building. ~ .
"PrOviding bkYcle racks aD the public right of ~y. This must ~ap~roved by
City of Ashland piJorrc Wooo Department: -- , -. -.' . .
Providing secure storage space inside the building.
>..
c.
d.
3.
All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of well-used
entrances and not farther 'from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking
space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right-of-way and to
the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple buildings, building
entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle parking shall be located
in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists. /
Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to provide
security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are
thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor vehicle parking
lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at leastas-welllit as automobile
parking.
An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each row
of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the illustrations
,used for the implementation of this chapter.
Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle.
Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved for
bicycle parking only. ,
Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter meet all
requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial bike'lockers are
acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle parking space located
inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a minimum of six feet long by
3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is provided to allow configuration as
indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter.
Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include the
minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapte!.
/1-
4.
5.
6.
7,
8.
9.
Page 4 of8
--
Ashland OR Municipal Code
'"
.
~..__J"
10.
r-.....-..-.-...-. --.. -
f
~lcycle parking shall be 10cals-d..lQ minimize the possibilily of accidental damage 10
.. eilhedilcycles"o'rnicKs. Wli;re needed, barrlers's~.e il)sta.lled.~.. ....- -
Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They snail not be
located so as to violate vision clearance slandards. Bicycle parking facililies~hould be
.__"_--'- _~.Q,Q,i.Q!!.s_\Y.tlb.Jl:!c;iLe.!lv~~t:'!!..~~~h }~. col~r a!.l_~~.e.~; ~acililies ~hould be
Incorporated whenever possibre-lllt~.~~,~Jlng~~~~~_o~_~.tr~t ~~~~e. .)
II.
..~.
J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards.
..... .
A II required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack specifications
shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple rack installations
shall confonn with the minimum clearance standards shown in the figures at the end of
this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be approved after review by the
Bicycle Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor. Alternatives shall conform
. _ .._--- .. ..:.. with.a11 ()therapplicable standards of this sectio~ ~i~Ycl.~ P.ar.I5,inglllcbor. !ocke.rs shall
be anchored securely. . .
The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are designM So that
.~j9'.!=Jes may_ ~_!.c;.gJn:Jy J.ocked to them without !!.nd.l,l.einconv~nience ~ will be
. reas~~a~~y_s_afeg~l!fd~~. frOf!1.~r;!lti9.D~Lor a~i~_~.n. tal ~_a!!l~~~'. '~_':~' ~-.'"
, . - --- . t~_:':" ~:- " ,
1.
r-'
,
2.
.- -,--
.....--.-.
,/"--
a.
Bkycle rackS sbaITlioid bicycles securely by means' oflhdrame. .Jnte frame
shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a
manner that will damage the wheels.
Bicycle racks shall accommodate:
b.
".1
l. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-security
V-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel; and
It". Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U-
shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the
bicycle; and
iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable
not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel.
c,
Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shalI be surfaced in
the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two
inch. thidl1c;.ss of hard. surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, oT'simltar
material) and silliii' be-i-eiat'ively level;.T.~is su~f~~e._~jll.l:lem~~tained ina
.---. .,. ..... . ....- "
smooth, durable, and welI-draineCl condition. \
......-.-. ----....~'..... , '\
... .. ... .-.. j
r'-
\,
~~..-._.. ..~_.- -.- ....---
SECTION 18,92.050 Compact Car Parking.
Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars.
Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be S x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted.
with the words "Compact Car Only."
SECTION 18.92.055 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District.
In order to preserve existing structures within the Ashland Historic District, while pennitting the redevelopment
of property to its highest commercial use, a variance of up to 50% of the required automobile parking may be
granted to commercial uses within the Ashland Historic District as a Type I Variance. It is the intent of this
clause to provide as much off-street parking ~s practiclll while preserving existing structures and allowing them
to develop to their full commercial potential. Additionally, to identify redevelopment of existing commercial
and residential buildings for commercial(use 'within the Ashland Historic. Disl'ri~t.as an exceptional
circumstance and unusual hardship for the PHrpOses.ot:.granting a vaFianee:.-....__._-.. . )
e___.............. -__-._...-.-.~---..... ...-.-,.
15
........
Ashland OR Municipal Code
mitalions, Localion, Use of Facilities.
ocallon. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities
may be located on another arcel rovided said parcel is wilhin 200 feet
. tended to Th~,distan~ from the par ot 10 teuse shall b~rrteasured in\'f~Jking.
d.istan. ce. ,fr....om. J.h.e.. p.~~'.~i.s.J.lllf,king.. space to an a.c.. c.ess to. t..h~..';fuJtRJ. .ing..:...Ij..Q....~...~~.~j.. .. . t~7e.. ...lu..~.e. ~.~. ~..~.6.nga
sidewalk or otherpeaes. aJh separated fr'?l11srreet ttaffio;./iijS.~.fh,.f;~~_~fte
patkm~~~.Wd e '<lasetfi'eht'- '0" -. ..: 'itt ;:mtllitilrlfnt:~'IiShjfi
st!chuse~.fQtt~duriit' . .':o't '. ~ ~". .
B. xc a owe In 18.9 . . and except in the M-Industrial District, required automobile
parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street,
except alleys.
C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total
requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the
several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are
offset. In such case the Staff Advisor may reduce the total requirements accordingly,' but not by
e 35%.
J~i!1t.Jl$r~.Ij~f..ft1f;~~~J~~~if~c.!li,ri~...~f~o<Jrmo~tlS~.~~~~.O~~~Js.Of
land maY~.~~~b)'the-same pilrkmgJaclbtles usedJOl~t!)'.;.t()~I;he.extenWiatlt:cal'(;b.C'sliown
by the ownersar . rairsthat th .' ities doesl.lQ(,materiall ... . . " ses
pramara of a da ime v. nighttime tur and rovidedth~t~\(: .mqt~1~91IJ..t:ySeJ~Sii~~n(:ed
ya detd;I~~;-(:olltra inen anstnimentesta61isllifiJfsUCh''jolii't'fise? ;".
E. I Y of Facilities. All automobile an IC e or parking of
residents, customers and employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of
vehicles or materials. .
F. In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and recreational
vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which is no more than 25% of the
area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard,
whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is
incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this
section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this ordinance.
However. a 24-hour warning notice of violation shall be provided prior to the issuance of a
citation to appear in Municipal Court, and it shall be rebuttably presumed that the vehicle was
parked with permission of the person in control of the property. Subsequent violations shall not
r r~~arning notice. .(Ord.2320, 1984)
ON 18.92.070 tomobile Parking Design Requirements.
Ize and Access. All required parkin area all
end . Chapt , .Bli'..f9~~~8f~~k~~~P'.',
that 50~pt.t.besp~~m~~ .. ""(FshalithaYi!~22. f06i .'
back -up space:exooptwff~r,cf1J~
B. veways an urn- roun s. nveways and tum-arounds providing access to parking areas
shall conform to the following provisions:
I.
A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a shared
driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet.
Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate
aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner.
. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet
in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site. with due
regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and pennanently marked
and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12 feet
~;:~~,. :i~I~'ad c:
_ Dev.lo.m~. acdoni" divisions of .....rty, .ither by
~1~c)(--:t.!J4: . . f' ... .. . n, shall minImIze the number of driveway
. Page 6 of 8 / f,
~........
2.
3.
Q
...........
\...
Ashland OR Municipal Code
b.
intersections wi h . . ..', ' . . .
. .,... :'~~,~~/~j)Cl!l,.P&!,yewaysbe closer than24 feet as Ol~~spr,~d
fr()ffi:)he bonO'm:,'of the existin or proposed apron wings of the d/-ive"Wa
r~a
Plans for property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family
developments shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been
minimized through the use of sharl:d driveways and shall indicate all necessary
G
.~~Iopmenis sUl>jcct to a QI8~.~ing lIt'tion shlJlI r~veall~~~u~<and
'~riveWaY appr~cIt~not sho.wit,t()'!>e~~.t(m~jStmg.i~~iits9r
~~~ d:;:~~m.en~'cu::.=~.,~~j;~:;' I' " .'-)t7~c.
. underpermitoftheEng~:[)iVjSiOn~ '..
C.
Vertical Clearanc~. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and rarn{>s shaU'have---a minimum
vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width.
. Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in eXcesSOf.twD and;on~haIffeet in height
shall be placed inthe.v.ision clearance area. The vision eI~.area ~1hci ~~,g!eJonnedby. "
a.line connecting points 25 feet from the inte~ection of property.lin~. In the case-of an
intersection involving an aUey and a street, the tri~le..~ f<!rmed. by a line~onn~iIJg pointuen... .r
(10) feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. When the angle ofinterseciion between the
street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall be 25 feet. No signs, structures or
vegetation or portion thereof shall be erected within ten (10) feet of driveways unless the same
is less than two and one-half feet in height. The vision clearance standards established by this
section are not subject to the Variance section of this title.
Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall
apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
D.
E.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be paved
with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the
office of the City Engineer.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have provisions
made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters
onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed
to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces pennanently and
clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum offour inches in height and width and
six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to
withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be proYL,~eaJlR~~.pr,i~tel{)r.~:lb~W!:~~s
abutting,property lines, buildings, landscaping, "'~jcleShallovtthai1ga pubhc
rigl1t~O'twa~..
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen
hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall
be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way
line. Screen planting shaH be of such size and number to provide the required
screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or
hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately
maintained by a pennanent irrigation system. and said wall or hedge shall be
maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be
designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
b. In all zones, except single-family zones,. where parking facilities or driveways
are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zon~, school yards, or like
/1 .
Plll'l" 70fR
,...
Ashland OR Municipal Code
7.
IIlSIIlUlions. a sight"obscuring fence. wall. or evergreen hedge nOI less than
(lve feet. nor more than six feel high shall be provided on the property line as
meas"ure<n-;ornlhehigh g~~ide. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced
10 30 inches within required srt"oacK area, or wi~hin 10 feCI of streel property
lines, and shall bemaintatne~ good condition. Screen plantings shall be of
such size and number to provide lhere-quiredsctiening within 12 months after
installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or
plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas.
Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not
less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parkingl1lcilit,ies, inelu,ding the landscaping
---req"uiretl"in stibdivisiOri 6(a) above. ... Said .18ndscapirrg-sh~1I be uniformly distributed
throughout the parking area. be provided with irrigation faCilities and protective curbs
-" orraised- wood .headerS':- it may consist of Irees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related
- . -m?t~.d8J: A miniiiluni6f one tree per seven -parking-spaccfs is required.
Lightin~ of p~rking 8{eas \Vi.thin 100 feet of p.rQP~rtY.iIt residential zones shall be
directed into or on the site and away from property lines suchthatthe~light element shall
not be directly visible from abutting residential property.
-~".-~._-...
t
\
"
.-.---.......-......-- .
.......--.-....-.--.
8.
ION 18.92.0 onstruction.
The requIre n.g facilities, including desi
of use and occupancy or a release of utilitie .
However, t e 1Cla may, erwise directed by the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor,
release a temporary certificate of use and occupancy and a temporary release of utilities before the installation
of said facilities provided: (1) there is proof that the owner has entered into a contract with a reputable
installer for the completion of the parking, including design standards, with a specified time, and that there
remains nothing for the owner to do prior to installation; or (2) the owner has posted a satisfactory perfonnance
bond to ensure the installation of said parking facilities within a specified time.
SECTION 18.92.090 Alterations and Enlargements.
The required parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged
by the addition or creation of guest rooms or dwelling units, or when a use is intensified by the addition of floor
space, seating capacity, or change in use.(Ord. 2659, 1991; Ord. 2777, 1996)
.A
:dJ,
J---.;
/8
Page 80f8
-
· ACCESS & PARKING:
Per the Multifamily Parking Standard, the Project requires:
9 1 bedroom Units @ 1.50 spaces! Unit = 13.5 spaces
4 2 bedroom Units@ 1.75 spaces! Unit= ~ spaces
13 Units 20.5 Spaces Required
~
The Ashley Senior Apartments has entered into an Agreement with the applicant
regarding the joint use of the driveway and use of parking within their parking lot.
The Owner of the Apartments has submitted a request for approval to jointly use
"Shared Access and Reciprocal Parking Agreement-. and will submit for formal
approval of the project lender, the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural
Development Department upon project approval by the City. A copy of a letter of
support from the Ashley Senior Apartments for the project and the shared driveway
and Parking is attached in this Application,
..... - ~ ~
Parking Breakdown
Onsite Spaces
Offsite Spaces
Onsite
Offsite- Ashley Apts.
Offsite- Siskiyou Blvd.
15
3
3
Total Spaces
15
6 = 21
. ..'
.' ,
~
.
. .
. ... .. "','.
'.
....
. 1
..
.....
. ..
. . ~ .
1t> , ~
.
..
..
. .
.
. '~O."
'..
. ,
LETI'ER OJ' AGREEMENT
.',.
1.0 WhOlll ~t May Concern:
l1is ia a Letter of A,grtleRlCftl for Ihc proposed shared &:cess Drive aud Reciprocal
rarlLins /\pemenl between tile AsYey Seaior Apa1IDCIdS r'AsbIey") and Creekside
Cotta8es~. II is tbe iatc:ot ofbolb panics to 1IlIOdt togc:thcr to aeaIC · plan
that ~ both propenies aacI besl-.tilizes the .cc:ess and parting for both
properties.
-
.
, ..
'l'bcre exists a strip of land approximately sewa (7') feet wide that MIS DOI'th to south for
approximatclyfour huDdled l'MRy aiDe (429' feel dOMl the entire length of tile
common west property JiM tbal is the Property or~ ("'Ibo PropcIty'").
The Pr~y is curRIllly used by Ash1ey as a landlClpC .. ~f. feet aDd abOut o~' ,
fOOl oCaspbah into tho eatcy dri'vc. ~is ~ upOn buildiag cOttage housmg
...Il.......lo use_ P........, '" - ~ ~JlIIl of tho -- _ ~ _ _" rL-'"
Al:feemeal and MoIuaI.~ created ~ANpst. 1990 ~~ can be taba for nvr-'!"_ .
use by ~ wiIh a fifhwa day IIOtioc. J. IS ia1tea. Aah1ey will aufra- -:;t.fJ "~~ t(
from III ~ately sized drive ad ~ seIbIck '. ~ . ·
. . . .
.. ....,.
Creel"1ide and Ashley ~ve GOhc:qttually egrcocl to aWn'A,,, the ~~ in its c:urfcnt .
condition and share access OD the Ashley chM and provide up to Dine (9) guest parking
. spaces In its pamng 1~ whcR available. ~ formIlagfeement wiD be drafted upon
. approval by the Cily or AsbIaocJ ofQeekside Project and the USDARural
~ DcpInmcId. AsbIcts kGclcr. -
,.
Signed:
Dcvi... Aguinc
Sage Development. LLC
<::.:
l"d
9999-88"- it'S
~u..dOll1^.O ....s
,:)/
dSOfEO ~o 9t ~d~
.~--_. _.~......'~~
.,..... - -
SETTLEMENT AGRBEImHT AND !tu:l:uAL RELEAsE
As~ TNU&'\M6..r
~
,:'eC\Us{\{~ .r
Le-~
In consideration of the performance of the mutual
covenants contained herein, the undersigned agree as follows:
~. That stipulated judgments of dismissal sha~~ enter in
two pending ~awsuits which are known as Jackson County CirCUit
Court Cases No. 89-858-E-~ and 90-~008-L-3, respectively. ~~
remaining issue in the former case concerns allegations or
contempt which shall be specifical~y dismiSsed. ~e resUlt5ng
judgments of dismissal in each case shall be with prejudice and
without costs or attorney fees to any party.
2 . That the $5,000 surety bond post:~ by Ashland
Investment Group, II shall, by stipulation of the undersigned,
be forthwith returned to Ashland Investment Group, II by the
Trial Court Administrator.
~
- 3 . That the undersiqned hereby mut:ual.ly release one
another from liability for all ci-vil claims wh!ch are directly .. .
or indirectly connected with the two aboye-stated lawsuits _
being hereby diSmissed.
4. That henceforth the previously disputed property
boundary shall be the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the
Sout~west Quarter of Section 14 located in Township 39 South at
Range ~ East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson.county,
Oregon, as shown on Registered Survey No. 7532. A strip of .
land of approximately 7 feet in width lying Westerly of the
said Quarter section line between such . line and an exist~q. .
chain link fence has previously been in dispute concerning .
ownership. This parcel of land can be seen on Registered . _,
Survey No. 7532, and is hereafter referred to as."The Tract".
Ashland Investment Group, II, upon being furnished by "
Fredinburgs a proper legal description of ~ne Tract, ,shalb'
quitclaim by deed said tract to Robert and Ella Fredinburq.
. - 5. That, in addition to providinq the legal description'"
of The Tract, Fredinburgs shall, 'a1so" provide monuments at' each.
end of the true property boundary. bePi9' . hereby establ,ished, .
with such monuments to be pIa.ced. by a registered sUrveyqr, an~
with the monument located nearest: Siskiyou Boulevard to be .'
placed flush with the surface of any existing asphalt so.as not
to create a hazard to vehicles using the-present drivewAy.until
such time as Fredinburqs elect to relocate o~.replace.that .
curbline on the true property boun~ary so monUmeJited.
. .
. . ." ..
6. That the trees and shrubs now located on The Tract..
shall remain in place on an interim basis .and snaIl continue to
.fL..:;.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEAsE
Page -1- ~~
....
this pending
decision to begin moving the fence or the curbline r1~
e e ec s 0 s ~:. ~
en e curbline, Fredinburqs shall give 1~-
Ashland Investment Group, II, fifteen days written notice v-O
actually delivered to the law firm of Ainsworth, Davis,
Gilstrap, Harris, Balocca & Fitch, or its successor prior to
moving the fence or curbline. Such notice shall also designate
any trees or shrubs located in The Tract which wi1l be removed
as a result of moving the fence or the curbline. Upon receipt
of such notice, Ashland Investment Group, II shall have the
right to cap the existing sprinkler system at the true property
boundary, and the option, within the fifteen day period to .
transplant or otherwise remove the trees.and shrubs designated
by Fredinburgs in the said notice. Any tree or shrub so
designated which is not moved within the fifteen day period
shall b aba doned by Ashland Investment Group, II.
7. That Fredinburgs shall solely bear all expenses of
moving the fence, of moving or removing any existing curb or
asphalt located on The Tract, of moving or removing the
existing sprinkler system, of moving or removing any portion of
the existing Talent Irrigation District system, and of moving
or removing any trees or shrubs not transplanted by Ashland
Investment Group, II within th a ve-stated fifteen day notic
period. ·
8. That Fredinburgs sha 1 deed to Talent Irrigati n
District for no monetary consideration a perpetual,' non-
exclusive easement across The Tract for purposes of maintaining
the District's irrigation water delivery system. The
consideration for this deed shall be stated to be the
resolution of an existing dispute. Fredinburgs shall furnish
the proper legal description of The Tract for use as part of
such deeded easement, and this description shall be the same as
that to be provided in para ra h 4 above
#
,
9. That upon execution and delivery by Fredinburgs of all
doqpments provided for hereinabove, Ashland Investment Group,
and Billy Hoque sball pay to Fredinburgs the sum of
10,000. , and shall furnish to Fredinburgs a reproducible
cop e complete construction plans and drawings used for
the 62 unit Ashland project and the approximately 100 unit
Green Valley, Arizona, project.
10. That: it is clearly understood and agreed that neither
Ashland Investment Group, II, nor Billy Hogue grant Fredinburgs
any permission to use the said plans for any purpose, but
neither will assert any claim against them for the use thereof.
~
,p4.eJ,naL
I~~
9
......
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
Page ~2-
~3
,....
.
....
..
-.
11. That all parties hereto shall promptly s~gn all .
document~ necessary .to implement the terms of this agreement.
..
12. That this agreement shall be binding on the
undersigned as well as their successors or assigns.
13. That any dispute concerning this agreement, its
execution or its implementation shall be referred to Charles
McNair as arbitrator for his binding decision with the party
not prevailing in such decision to pay all attorney fees and
costs incurred by the other party or parties as well as the
arbi to's fees and expenses as he'shall determine in his
.so disc tion.
4r,3 -70
DATE
JOEL REEDER, DATE
Attorney for Robert
Fredinburq and Ella Fredinburq
LS
orney for
Investment Gro
Billy Hogue
and
"
".
IT IS ~ AGREED:.
ASHLAND INVESTMENT GROUP, II,
a Lim ted Partnership
. .
FREDIHBURG,
DATE
]'- I Y- p()
DATE ELLA FREDIHBURG,
DATE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASELl
paqe -3- :<T
--
. .
. .'
..
< , .
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
June 4, 2002 UPDATED
B.. 1.'.11 Molna,r, SeniOr.~laIlAer~Cl.'~,.,. o......f...~. hay;-l.an. d
Da. . ., If' ....., ., .. .. .Marshal. "
, ,.'" /+ . . (.
+ "~\~~ir~iOYfl1C>>tJW;"~ect::)
1. On schematic utility layout the location of the existing fire hydrant on Siskiyou Blvd is
wrong. The actual location is west of the bridge over the creek. The distance from the
hydrant to the west edge of the existing driveway to be shared is 250'. Thus this hydrant will
only serve Unit 3.
2. Existing fire hydrant on Jaquelyn can not be used for this project since fire apparatus access
is not provided between this hydrant and the proposed project.
Fire hydrant distance is exceeded between the new fire hydrant and Units 11, 12, & 13.
~'~~~~~~~~:e<.... ........~iS:J~t~to
m '. ara~~aroui:J.dteqlrlieni~n~~~.:In lieu' of tJ,llS{tl{J).Pt~tW:1il:lround for the
.~... , ""',;p~'Sea.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
6, Fire apparatus access requirements are not met for Units 11, 12, & 13. (Maximum 150' as
measured along all exterior walls to fire apparatus position at end of driveway)
7. 12' Terry tree at Unit 1 will interfere with fire apparatus access, MinimWD vertical clearance
is 13' 6".
ASHlAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 Siskiyou Blvd. .
Ashland; Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-i88-5318
m: 800-735-2900
~~
~A'
......"
ap~~_,c,
12. It is understood that this project is considered condominiums and these cottages can never be
sold as single-family homes or individual tax lots as proposed.
/'i3\I highly encourage the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system in all units.
~Installation in Units 11, 12, and 13 can be done in lieu of access to hydrant on Jaquelyn or,
installation of further hydrants on this project and may override fire apparatus access issues
for these units if other reasonable access alternatives canJlsM"t1 (Reference Oregon
.... ,J.~_:"'V-~.'_ <u.,o_',"'.:' .-, -
(.2..~..,:,fi..o.,..W!.-".......-.r.,..,~. _.,e._ Code Sec. tion 9.. 02... .2.:..1.~..... xcep.....'.tI.'..o. n.s. !...~..~. . ""';. '.".' )Y.......... ~.:^qs.f~...'~..,?'.~eptionsdonot
6~t;Hld~'~lllinaround reqtiirement10r:a~&iveWay'" " ..ift '~':m.fengm
"_: -' ;:<;~?:_~~t',' '. .
cc. File
Keith Woodley, Fire Chief
ASHLAND FRE & RESCUE
455 SlsIdyou Blvd.
Ashland. Onlgon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541~18
TTY: 800-735-2900
~b
~A'
-
Planning Action'~2002-052
Property Located at 2275 Siskiyou Blvd.
Assessor's Map 3 9 1 E 1 4 C B - Tax Lot 3600
Public Hearing
Ashland Planning Commission
June 11, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
Ashland Civic Center
1175 East Main, Ashland, Oregon
18.72.050 Criteria for Auproval
D. (ORD. 2655, 1991)
1. Paved access to and through the development
A. Objection: None provided
2. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to
and through the subject property.
A. Objection: None provided
18.100.020
2. (ORD. 2425 Sl, 1987)
That the proposalts benefits will be greater than
any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses.
Section 18:72:090
Administrative Variance from Site Design and
Use Standards
18.72.080
All of the following circumstances are found
to exist.
B.. Approval of the variance will not SUbstantially
negatively impact adjacent properties.
Adjacent Property
Ashley Senior Center Apartments
2)01 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
~7
.."....... -~
2
Age: 13 years
Size: 62 units
Parking
Spaces: 64 spaces
No loading zone spaces
No on-street (Siskiyou Blvd.) parking allowed
Dri veway off Siskiyou HI vd.
20' wide. Minimum required by Fire Marshall,
Ashland Emergency Service: 20' with no obstructions.
Now being used as loading zone for:
Mail - Taxis - Moving vans - UPS - RVTD van -
Home Medical - Pl,umbers - r,::}r;.errters - Gleaners -
Installers - and assorted other vehicles.
Parking Lot is U-shaped with Trash Dumpster and
Recycle Bins at or near rear end of parking lot.
No sidewalk is available so tenant must walk length
of parking lot to dumpster near end of parking lot
on driveway section of parking lot. Driving width
can be less than 20' due to vaD,ing sizes of vehicles.
Suggest contact with Ashland Sanitation and discussion
of various problems the driver has had driving
through off Siskiyou, with access sometimes limited
to one lane and meeting other vehicles going the
other way.
Proposal of Applicant at 2275 Siskiyou
1. Share use of 20' Driveway.
2. Share parking lot.
A.
Want 7 parking spaces belonging to Ashley Senior
Apartments.
14 covered parking spaces on applicant property
backing into driving lane of Ashley parking lot
less than 20'-width with parking spaces occupied.
B.
Drivewav ano drivinp- lane less than 20' wide to
covered~parking spa~es, and 7 Ashley parking spaces
will be 2-way traffic.
Applicant Statements.. "Ashley Senior Parking Lot only 50%
occupied~r'Most seniors don't have cars"?
~V
c.
........"......'........--
J
Personal Response - Ashley Senior Apartment with car.
Siskiyou Blvd. is only 2 lane. Traffic from 1-5 south,
Traffic from Tolman Creek, Ashlander Apartments across street,
Bus stops both sides of Blvd, no crosswalks..
We nave had several legally blind residents crossing for
bus service. Caution upon exiting 20' wide driveway on
Siskiyou now as you must stay far on the right to allow
Drivers turning in driveway off Siskiyou space to enter
as traffic flow is fairly consistent. Closest traffic
signal is at Walker Avenue. "Seniors without cars don't
need parking spaces"? Most seniors without autos rely
on services that require parking space:
1. Meals on Wheels
2.. RVTD vans
J. Taxis
4. Shopping (small) bus
5.. Nursing aides
6. Health care workers
7. Housekeepers
8. And if we're really lucky, a friend or family
member might visitl
One resident over 100 years old has a son and a
daughter that come J times every day.
If all parking spaces are used, they could park at
BiMart and hike up Tolman to here, which would be
the closest parking lot.
9. Per Bill per planning, State of Oregon discourages
more driveways, more cars exiting on Siskiyou.
10. With 62 units and 64 p~rking spaces (2 close to
unusable), Drive 20' emergency requires,
no loading, no obstructions, vehicles now using
that strip no parking emergency fire use only,
we'll have to use existing parking spaces in
parking lot, reducing the 64 down further.
11. Planning Department states shared use driveway,
all parking spaces given to applicant, sharing
of driving lane in parking lot, all these are
perpetual rules.
12. When Flag Lots are considered, a 25-foot road access
is required and only 2-J residences are allowed.
This proposal is considering 62 -- plus 14 units t
for a total of 76 units, using only a 20-foot
driveway. Ashley is a Federally subsidized
low-income Senior and Disabled complex and should
deserve some comparable consideration.
Thank you, d.'1
C".: _1......; ""1""'10"
Barbara A. Bro~
~~nti A~hland. OR 97~20
Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd # 108 //.././
/-
Ashland, OR 97520 / ' '
,I
---
\
Bill Molnar
Community Development
Ashland, Oregon 97520
~ 7
/' V!
1 '~.;)
~_._--_...-----.. ./ /.//
Subject:
Hearing s ' Tree Commission, June 6th
Public Hearing' June 11,2002
File No. 2002/052
The residents of Ashley Senior Center Apartments are concerned about the
project at 2275 Siskiyou Blvd and iI.'.s..i.mpoct on ow: environment; of thirteen years.
Of particular concern is the removal of the huge trees along the property line which
affor~ed late afternoon shade to our apartments now and for years to come.
Of great concern will be the joint driveway which is also used as a walkway to the
bus stop and Siskiyou Blvd. The project unless down sized would add a lot of traffic
and pollution.
Will the planned cottages have fireplaces? If so, it would add greatly to the air
pollution.
Sincerely submitted,
,k~ ." ~c..I "
V c5 CZJL( 'l-'--
Heinz Lewin
30
---
The ARBORIST Ine
..~~... ~I'A~
~'PeteSeda ~ . 6 ~!
_ Urban Forester, General Contractor, & Certified Arborist.
'From Treetop to Root Tip, We Care."
1257 Siskiyou Blvd. # 224. Ashland,OR 97520
Since 1977, Bonded & Insured License # 65597
E-mail pete@thearborist.com www.thearborist.com
(541) n0-6789 or 488-5678 fax 488-8700
To: Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd., APT. 108
Ashland, OR 97520
Ph: 552-0849
June 24, 2002
Re: Trees on the property line of2275 Siskiyou Blvd. and 2301 Siskiyou
Blvd" APT. 108
Dear Heinz,
Cottonwoods along the west side of the retirement home property should be
examined and pruned regularly. If that is done the trees may be an asset and
last for many years to come. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Pete Se
Certifie Arborist, Urban Forester
E/
...,...---.
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will
be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on October 15.
2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East
Main Street, Ashland. Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person
or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the land Use
Board of Appeals (lUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the
objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to lUBA on that criterion.
Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed
conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond
to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report wil be available for
inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,
if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City
Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from .the applicant and
those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so reqcJests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after
the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to
contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-
2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
'~EW8'!.s..S <*RIVJ\lEf~-~::'-SSMH--'
'<~-,:
~ ~-
PLANNING ACTION 2002-052 is a request for Site Reviewapproval for a 13-unit, cottage style
condominium development for the property located at 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard. The application
includes a Variance to rear yard requirements (10 feet required, 7.0 feet proposed), and for
distance between buildings. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family
Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 14 CB; Tax lot: 3600.
APPLICANT: Alan Pardee
8~
""""
-'
SITE REVI EW
18.72.050 Criteria for Aooroval. The tollowing criteria shall be used to approve or
deny a site plan:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by the
proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
C. The site design complies with the guidelines 33dopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chap~er.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access
to-and througfi the development, electricity, urban storm drainage", and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property_ (Ord~ 2655, 1991)
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found in 18.100.020 and are as
follows:
1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not apply elsewhere.
2) That the proposal's benefits will be grater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1, "
1987)
3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
83
~
"I'"" " - -
CITY OF
4kSHLAhlD
September 12, 2002
Sage Development, LLC
Devian Aguirre
183 Lincoln Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #2002-052
Dear Sage Development, LLC:
At its meeting of August 13, 2002, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for Site Review, a
Physical Constraints Permit, and Variance for the property located 2275 Siskiyou'Boulevard-- Assessor's Map #
39 1E 14 CB, Tax Lot 3600.
The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the September 10, 2002 meeting, is enclosed.
Please note the follo~ems:
1. A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of
preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
2. A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval
becomes invalid.
There is a 15-day appeal period which must elapse before a building permit may be issued.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit
may be issued.
Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application
would have to be submitted.
Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
Senior Planner
cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 13, 2002
IN THE MA ITER OF PLANNING ACTION #2002-052, REQUEST FOR SITE ) FINDINGS,
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 13-UNIT, COTIAGE STYLE CONDOMINIUM ) CONCLUSIONS
DEVELOPMENT FOR THEPROPERTY LOCATED AT 2275 SISKIYOU ) AND ORDERS
BOULEVARD. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO REAR YARD )
SETBACK STANDARDS AND FOR DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS. )
)
APPLICANT: ALAN PARDEE )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 3600 of 391E 14 CB is located at 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard and is zoned R-3; High Density
Multi-Family Residential.
2) The applicant is proposing to construct a 13-unit, cottage-style condominium development, including
a Variance to rear yard setback standards and for distance between buildings.
3) The following Site Review approval are described in section 18.72 of the land use ordinance:
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
e. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided
to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991)
The criteria for approval of a rear yard setback and distance betWeen buildings Variance
are described in AMC 18.100 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 SI, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (Ord.
2775, 1996)
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on August 13, 2002,
3~
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission 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:
SECTION 1, EXHIBITS
F or 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 "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "Mil
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission fmds 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 fmds that the proposal to construct a 13-unit, cottage-style
condominium development, including a Variance to rear yard setback standards and for distance
between buildings meets all applicable criteria for approval described in the Site Review chapter
18.72 and Variances chapter 18.100.
2.3 The Commission finds that the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Review
approval, Public facilities are located within Siskiyou Boulevard, as well as within Jaquelyn Street
(to the north), and are available to accommodate service needs of the project. Street improvements
will be constructed along Siskiyou Boulevard the entire length of the project's frontage. Street
improvements shall consist of a six -foot bike lane, on-street parking (where noted), curb and
gutter, storm drain, seven foot planting strip and six-foot sidewalk.
Twenty one parking spaces are provided consistent with City of Ashland parking standards. The site
plan identifies required project parking within the boundary of the site (16 spaces), within the
adjacent and reconfigured senior apartment parking lot (three spaces) and through credits along
Siskiyou Boulevard (two-credits). In addition, the project design has shown creativity in its attempt
to utilize the existing driveway that serves the adjoining senior housing project, as well as
negotiating a shared parking arrangement.
The Commission finds that the project design is consistent the City's Site Design and Use Standards
:3"
_.
J',/EW 8" SS
cPUBUC
,-I
; EXISTING 6"
:, 'D1PWATER
'\~ EXIS~lNG
\~"-BRE-rtyDAANT ,-
I
/ "<" T" "-_~' ~ :..-
SSM~
'~
" ~
EXIST
'RRE\
,
PUBLIC UTILITY
TRENCH !
NEW 8" SS
,rtPR1V~TE)!
, I
NEW 811WATER
I (PUBLIC)
. r-;
I. '. I
I I
I-,L~ ,- i
'-~_.~ I
,_/~~ !
_-----I
\
I
rJr---~\_,
, \ \
>-"..----. "-.
( ...... ' ,
'" \ 1_\
.'., \\ L
1- _---, '\.
- -,~ -' '" \ "
1 ' ~'"
"- ,.'
"- "'.
i
i
,
I
,
'-u.
.....,".....
/
/
SCALE 1- = 40'-8" I S ~
"- ....... ~
I r--
-, ______rA
~-- =-------w
mz:
l22Z2J
,~"';.~"
".~~~ '
"'~ '''--.;;.:-~
LEGEND
SCALE: 1" = 40'.0"
--
DESIGN FLOODWAY BOUNDARY (SEE PLAN NOTES)
o
o
TREE TO REMAIN
TREE TO BE REMOVED FROM DEVELOPMENT AREA DUE TO HEALTH
PROBLEM: DEATH, SERIOUS DECLINE / STRUCTURAL STABIUlY, OR
INAPPROPRIATE SPECIES INCLUDING POPLAR, COTTONWOOD, ASPEN AND WILLOW
@
ARBORIST REPORT NUMBER
ARBOR 1ST REPORT EXHIBIT IAI
IJS
( : \ \ 'i--- ,..----r'
'y~ ~<~~~'-- (~\ \ ~ r- v[k ~
'~~( u; .-/ ~
I 'c t- ....;
\~J;~J I f ~ ~ -[ ~
~~;"~' 1// n / !.
11 r ---- ((I!/r-~/ ~~NJ ~
~ ---2"5-----..... ~ I~, !l' /
~ '-J u: /~
I ~'. '1'1) J A
-----:~&- / U I 18'-( ------22'dl"
; (iV c. ~------/---....j IUNT 8 I ~ r' IT ,e>
"'" ry..;:~~ ~ I r~ ~ .0
~ III ~ f-\ .--------v v@
~Vl!!'~~
b !f( ~r c@
~ ., 'r!J. .cr Ira.
-r-- ~ f"l"-lilj i\ --- -- - ~
~ ~'-t.::"i~ h i,.L-.;-:.., .> c @
J .....l ~.......... l-r 1;.IUIfT6 l:i'U{ :: cAllI"---
~ ~ L I---
-~~ ~ v . !:-J c @)
-tCt:,
"'" .v-' I __
...
_.
f7
........t--
t--r--.
Pf
-;
IJ
-
)~
~
'----~
~~~
1"\
'j 'j'c
.,-: '/In
~~B
~~
~
~
~~~
--
~
a
~
~
Vl'\ ""''',,'v
~
L~
CD c
CIl c
0.) C 27
-16'-0" 18'-0'-
v
2 C
-
3 C
4 C
5 C
6 C
7 C
8 C
9 C
10 C
11 C
25'-0"
,-1
134-
\ I
I ~~ y_ ~
v V v v v,', . V'L~
',LJ, 20'-0" 53 C .
NEW CURB AUGNMENT ~-^--../'~
../'-----
=
55 C
28 C 52
5&
29 C 51
C 50 57
30
C 49 58
31
C 48 59
32
22'-0' 3318'-0'- 47 60
18'-0' _. 25'-0' 18'-0' _
46 61
34
45 62
35 C
36 C
:f7 C
38 C
(j- I.) V-- 12 C ___
--P1~~
7 @ \ '"
.J ~
~ @ 13
.Q 'i"///-
'& 14
~' 22'-0" ~ 18'-0"
@\ \ 15
/ ///// f2\
16 0
!,
~ 2lJ-O"
V
LV
1\ ~ v---
(
~~~
\ -------
Oil. ~ ~
" v~ "'1 f'., ..c- --
~~~:- ~~ ~~
~ 7 ---
-
26
25
24
23
22
21 typical'
20 this row! 39 C
9'-{)" 40 C
19 wide
41 C
18
17
42 C
/////:
43
44
all//
ASHLEY SENIOR HOUSING
LEGEND
CREEKSIDE PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 21 (includes 3 spaces from
Ashley and 2 on-street credits)
21 ASHLEY PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 62 (gross total 65 with
3 spaces provided to Creekside)
COMPACT PARKING SPACES
(G Number of compact spaces:
CREEKSIDE - 8
ASHLEY - 31
PARKING PLAN:
CREEKSIDE CanAGES
AND ASHLEY SENIOR HOUSING
SCALE 1. = 40"-0-
Cottages extending into the estimated floodplain boundary will be built upon engineered
piers elevating the units above projected flood levels. In no case will any unit will any
unit be built more than two (2) feet below the estimated flood height level.
The piers supporting the cottage structure will be engineered and constructed to
withstand possible damage from flooding and lateral loads. More detailed information
will be provided in the physical constrains and flood corridor findings, below.
Demolition -
Currently on the site, there is an existing older single-family house, two cottage units, a
large barn and a storage shed. The existing farmhouse is proposed for salvage and will
be moved and reconstructed at another site in Ashland. The remaining two cottages and
outbuildings are of inferior and substandard condition and will be detllolished. The barn
will be salvaged and all materials, especially the siding, will be re-milled and used in the
cottage construction. A recycling center will be established at the site for all recyclable
materials during demolition and construction.
Accessory Structures -
The applicants Site Plan shows carports along the East property line. The
normal side yard setback in the R-3 zone District is 6 feet. ASD Chapter 18.68.140.D
Accessory buildings and structures, allows accessory structures (carports) to be
setback 3 feet from the property line, regardless of the side yard set back, if the following
conditions are met:
1. If the structure is greater than 50 feet from any public street or
alley;
2. If the structure is detached and separated from other buildings by 10
feet or more; and
3. If the structure is no greater in height than 15 feeL
The proposed carports are approximately 130 feet from Siskiyou Boulevard and
60. feet from Jaquelyn Street. The carports are over ten feet away from the
proposed cottages. The carports will be no greater in height than 15 feet
The support posts for the carports will be 3 feet from the property line and the facia
will overhang no greater than 18 inches from the property line.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or wUl be met.
The applicant is providing a written Narrative and Findings as well as Site and Landscape
Plans, Topographic Survey, aerial photograph and Building Elevations drawings.
This information is provided in this Application Package and addresses the submittal
requirements of Chapter 18.72.060.
iLf.
16
The Landscape Standards of Chapter 18.72.110 requires a minimum of25% of the
total developed lot to be landscaped. The applicant is providing 77%. Further, only
22.4% of the site will be impervious surface. Also, the LandscapelIrrigation Plan and
Project Description Section of the Narrative addresses the requirements of this Chapter.
The applicant has located a shared trash/recycle area along the entrance driveway, see
Site Plan. This area will be screened from view by a 6-foot high concrete block wall and
landscaping. Vehicle access for the trash/recycle trucks, emergency vehicles, and tenant
autos will be from this private shared driveway. All site and building lighting will be
directed away from adjacent properties. Also see Finding A, above, relating other Site
Review issues.
CC&R's for maintenance and access will be provided, prior to obtaining a
building permit.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the
City Council for implementation of the Chapter.
Approval Standards: Multi-f'amily residential development shall conform to the
following design standards:
II-B-l) Orientation
II-B-I a) Residential buildings shall have their primary orientation toward
the street when they are within 20 to 30 feet of the street.
II-B-Ib) Buildi1igs shall be set backfrom the street according to ordinance
requirements, which us usually 20 fiet.
II-B-lc) Buildings shall be accessedfrom the street and the sidewalk
Parking areas shall not be located between buildings and the street.
As shown on the Site Plan, Units 1 and 3 are 15 feet from the property line
which is consistent with the front yard set back of the R-3 zone district.
The entrances of theses two units are orientated toward Siskiyou Boulevard.
A public onsite walkway links these units and the other units to the public
sidewalk on Siskiyou Boulevard and to Jaquelyn Street. The proposed
parking areas are behind Units 1, 2 and 3.
II-B-2) Streetscape
Il-B-2a) One street tree for each 30 fiet of frontage, chosen from the
street tree list, shall be placed on that portion of development paralleling
the street. Where the size of the project dictates an interior circulation
street pattern, a similar streetscape with street trees is required
s~
17
........."
II-B-2b) Front yard landscaping shall be similar to those found in
residential neighborhoods, with appropriate changes to decrease water use.
The Site Plan shows a number of mature trees located adjacent to Siskiyou
Boulevard. Most of those trees are Cottonwood; however, there is a large
Oak and Cherry Tree. Eight additional trees (Pistache) will be added along the
street frontage.
II-B-3)Landscaping
II-B-3a) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within ,
one year of installation and 900/fJ landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years.
I/-B3b) Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and
evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species well adapted to the
local climate.
II-B-3c) As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is
reasonably feasible.
I/-B-3d) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas
of at least 10 feet in width.
II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and
shall be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses.
II-B-3f) Irrigations systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
Refer to parking lot landscaping and screening standards for more detail.
The landscape architect has designed a plan that will have 50% coverage within one year
and 90% coverage within five years. The Landscape Plan also shows a variety of
deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and flowering plants. The front yard setback of
units 1 arid 3 is 15 feet. This area has both existing and proposed planted areas, see
Landscape Plan. Most of the existing trees will remain. The Landscape Plan shows that
the parking areas are shaded by large canopied existing and proposed deciduous trees.
Further, the landscape architect has added other plant material to screen the parking from
the common and private open space areas. The irrigation system will also comply with
the City of Ashland Standards, see notes on the Preliminary Landscape Plan.
The applicant has provided an arborist report (Arbor West) that discusses the tree
removal and preservation strategies for the site, see attached report in Exhibits section of
this document and Finding A, above.
~,
18
II-B-4) Open Space
II-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to
open space for recreation for use by the tenants of the development.
II-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other ground covers which
do not provide a suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward
this requirement.
~
~
II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space
criteria, Plan areas for children are required for projects of greater than
20 units that are designed to include families.
JiJ
The applicant is providing 77% of the site in common and private own space
recreation. This far exceeds the 8% minimum requirement. Much of the
common open space is for passive recreational use. This area is located
within the floodplain boundary where the pond, creek, meadow, and existing
path is located, see Site and Landscape plan.
,-~
~~
The applicant is also providing individual private open space that is .
comprised of gardens, patios and front porches see Site Plan.
ll-B-5)Natural climate control
II-B-5a) Utilized deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch
densities on the south sides of the buildings which are occupied and have
glazingfor summer shade and winter warmth.
The landscape architect has selected deciduous trees that will provide bare
branches in the winter and full leaves in the summer, see Landscape Plan.
These trees will ameliorate the existing trees on the site.
II-B-6)Building Materials
II-B-6a) Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the
surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors which
attract attention to the building or use are unacceptable.
The colors selected by the applicant are shown on the Exterior Elevations and are either
stained cedar siding or painted with strong earth toned colors. Stronger colors will be
used for the trim to accent the cottage style. No neon-type paint will be used.
~7
19
......"'
D. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards
Approval standards: All parking lots, which for purposes of this section
include areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading shall be
landscaped and screened as follows:
II-D-1) Screening at required yards
1) Parking abutting a required landscapedfront or exterior yard shall
incorporate a sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped
yard.
$iJ
2) The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches or higher than the finished
grade of the parking area, except for required vision clearance areas.
3) The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and
plant materials. Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the
retaining wall.
4) The landscape plan shows a sight obscuring hedge screen between all the
parking areas and the cottage and recreation/open space. When mature, this
hedge will grow to at least 36 inches higher than the parking area.
II-D-2) Screening abutting properly lines
1) Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5' landscaped
strip. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be
incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional
requirement.
. ~'::
The proposed parking area is adjacent to the existing parking lot for the
Ashley Apartments and is served by a common driveway, see Site Plan.
Therefore, no screening is provided between these two properties.
II-D-3) Landscape Standllrds
1) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of7% of the total
parking area plus a ratio of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create
a canopy affect.
2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large cimopied shade tree and shall
be selectedfrom the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and
utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians.
3) The tree shall be planted in the landscaped area such that the tree bole is
at least 2 fiet from any curb or paved area.
~g
20
."...-'-~
4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living groundcover
to assure 50% coverage within 1 year and 900/0 within 5 years.
5) Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and
parking perimeter at the required ratio.
6) That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip
abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping
but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living
plant material coverage and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front
or exterior yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior parking stalls.
~
The Landscape Plan, provided by the landscape architect, and the other findings in this
document shows compliance with the above standards. It must be nQted that much of the
landscaping (trees and within the floodplain) are existing, see Arborist Report in the
Exhibits section of this document.
.......
~
I1-D-4)Residential Screening
1) Parking areas adjacent to a residential dwelling shall be set back at least
8 feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen.
The Landscape plan shows a continuous hedge screen between the parking areas
and residential units. The eight-foot setback is exceeded in all locations,
I1-D-5) Hedge Screening
The required hedge screen shall be installed as follows:
1) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is
achieved within 2 years, 100% within 4 years.
2) Living ground cover in the screen strip shall be planted such at 100%
coverage is achieved with 2 years.
The landscape architect has specified the above standards, see Landscape Plan.
I1-D-6)Other Screening
1) Other screening and buffiring shall be provided as follows:
Refuse Container Screen:
Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement of
a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse
materials shall be contained within the refuse area.
~9
21
The trash/recycle container, located on the private drive near the parking area has a six-
foot high masonry wall and is further screened with shrubs, see Landscape Plan.
Service Corridor Screen:
When adJacent to residential uses, commerical and industrial service
areas shall reduce the adverse efficts of noise, odor and visual clutter upon
adjacent residential uses.
Not applicable.
~'
Light and Glare Screen:
';.J
4rtificiallighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct
glare on adjacent residential properties or streets.
.~~:)
Both wall and pole-mounted lighting will be constructed as to not produce
direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets.
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
Approval standards: All developn"mt fronting on public or private streets
shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following
standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in this
section.
II-E-l)Location for Street Trees
1) Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is
a designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 8
ftet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally
conform to the standard established by the Department of Community
Development.
II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
All tree spacing may be made subJect to special site conditions which may, for
reasons such as saftty, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition
shall be subJect to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement,
spacing and pruning of street trees shall be as follows:
aJ Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 ftet of
street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the
spacing permitted for specific site limitations,. such as driveway
approaches.
90
22
b) Trees shall not be planted closed than 25 fiet from the curb line of
intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private
driveways (measured from the back edge of the side walk), fire hydrant, or
utility poles.
c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards.
Except for Public safity, no new light standard location shall be
positioned closer than 10 fiet to any existing street tree, and preferably
such locations will be at least 20 fiet distant.
,..,
',HJ
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2Yzfietfrom theface of the curb
except at intersections where it shall be 5 fiet from the curb, in a curb
return area.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen
that will not interfire with those lines.
j) Trees shall not be planted within 2 fiet of any permanent hard
surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees
shall be at least 10 square fiet, however, larger cuts are encouraged
because they allow additional air and water into the toot system and add
to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface
may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as
grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks.
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of
clearance above sidewalks and 12 fiet above street roadway surfaces.
h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage
from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of
variable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees,
subject to approval by the Staff Advisor.
IJ;-E-3)Replacemenl 01 Street Trees
1) Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the
developer with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees
shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff
Advisor.
II-E-4)Recommended Street Trees
1) Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the
Ashland Tree Commission.
<1/
23
There is a proposed sidewalk fronting the subject property; therefore, the
proposed street trees will be located behind this sidewalk. The landscape
architect has specified street trees which comply with the above findings
and standard established by the Department of Community Development.
D. That adequate capacity of city facililks for water, sewer, paved access
to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject
property.
:~"1
The applicant is providing a schematic utility layout (see Exhibits; Utility Plan).
The civil engineer for the project prepared the utility plan. This schematic layout shows
the location of existing and propo~ on-site and off-site water, sewer, and
electricity/CTV /telephone.
<:!if
-.r...-
On-site drainage will be managed in two distinct ways. The on-site drainage for the
natural areas will be directed west to the creek and pond where it will infiltrate into the
soil or filter across the existing landscape and meadow, a distance of between fifty and
one-hundred fee4 before entering the creek or pond. Unpolluted water will enter the
pond and creek. Drainage from hard surfaces, including parking lot paving and rooftops,
will be directed through roof gutters and valley drains to the storm drainage system
Vehicle access will be from the shared private driveway (see Letter of Agreement).
This private driveway will connect to Siskiyou Boulevard, a major city arterial with
capacities between 8,000 to 30,000 ADT's. The project will generate at most 91 ADT's
(7 trips per 13 units). This amount of ADT's will have a minimal effect on Siskiyou
Boulevard. Further, Siskiyou Boulevard has both public transportation and bike paths
that may mitigate the amount of the projected vehicle trips.
The applicant will provide a six- foot wide sidewalk along the frontage of the subject
property. A public walkway will connect Siskiyou Boulevard to Jaquelyn Street. The
applicant will provide an easement for this walkway. Vehicle access will be from the
shared private driveway (see Letter of Agreement). This private driveway will connect to
Siskiyou Boulevard, a major city arterial with capacities between 8,000 to 30,000 ADT's"
The project will generate at most 91 ADT's (7 trips per 13 units). This amount of ADT's
will have a minimal effect on Siskiyou Boulevard. Further, Siskiyou Boulevard has both
public transportation and bike paths that may mitigate the amount of projected vehicle
trips.
9~
24
VARIANCE
The Planning Commission and Staff can approve a variance when the below
fmdings have bee addressed:
The criteria for approval of a Rear Yard Setback Variance are described in
AMC 18.100 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site
which do not typically apply elsewhere.
B.
That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts
on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose
and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
(Ord. 242581,1987).
",~
~
.;.;...~1
~I
~.::..S~
--
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or
purposely selflmposed. (Ord. 2775,1996).
Rear Yard Setback -
Chapter 18.28, high density multiple family residential district (R-3)
requires under 18.28.040.0 that the rear yard setback be 10 feet per story.
The one story portion'ofunits 11 and 12 have an average setback of8 Y:z feet
with a minimum of 6 Y:z feet from the rear property line, hence this request.
As mentioned in the Site Description and other findings in this document
approximately fifty (50%) of the site is in floodplain, where buildings cannot be
located" Further, the land area on the West boundary that is outside the floodplain
cannot be developed due to lack of access. Of the 1.77- acre site, less than one third
can be developed. Within this third of developable area there are nwnerous trees that
create additional constraints. The allowable density for this size R-310t would be 35
dwelling units but due to the above constraints that applicant can only provide 13 cottage
units.
It is also important to note that the applicant is proposing a unique
housing type which departs from the normal row house R-3 developments.
tt3
25
The cottage concept of smaller individual non-traditional housing units is
supported by "Ashland Housing Needs Analysis" (Draft March, 2002).:
"In short, Ashland's housing market is dominated by baby boomers,
students, and retirees. A larger share of these people form non-family
households, which included people living alone, unmarried couples and
unrelated people sharing housing, all with no children. These
non-traditional households reduce Ashland's average household size.
These conditions imply stronger demand for smaller non-traditional
housing units in Ashland." (Emphasis added).
1;J
However, this housing concept requires flexibility from the review agencies
to allow this desirable concept to be re-established in Ashland.
.
Any adverse impact to the neighboring property caused by these two small
units, will be far less than the existing 26 foot tall, 90 year old barn
that is 8 feet from the rear property line.
SPECIAL YARDS, DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS -
Chapter 18.28, high density multiple family residential district (R-3)
requires under 18.28.040E, that the distance between principal buildings
shall be at least one half the sum of the height of both buildings and in no
care shall it be less than 12 feet. The Site Plan provided by the applicant
shows 13 individual cottages which, in most cases are closer together than
the 12 feet minimum distance.
It is the applicants belief that this provision is specifically intended and best serves larger
apartment buildings and is not intended or appropriate to single-family structures. The
small building footprint and minimal building height (19 feet z) of the proposed cottages
creates a minimal impact to the site or adjacent properties. In fact, the building layout on
the site is no different than the small lot subdivisions throughout Ashland that have
utilized the Performance Standard Options.
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS
The criteria for approval of a Physical Constraints Review Permit to allow
development within a Floodplain Corridor are described in AMC 18.62 as
foDows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter,
the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered,
and adverse impacts have been minimized
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the
development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential
hazards caused by the development.
'14
26
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse
impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission
shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordnance.
In addition, for all land use a~tions that ~ould result in development of the
Floodplain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of
Chapter 15.10:
""'B>
i:&
'S'
A. Standards for fill in Floodplain Corridor Lands:
1
Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter
70, where applicable.
The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of jloodway
channels, as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall exceed the angle
of repose of the material used for fill.
The amount of fill in the floodplain corridor shall be kept to a
minimum. Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could
displace jloodwater shall be limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted
structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with
approved public and private street and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e. The above limits onfill shall be measuredfrom Apri/1989, and shall
not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum
cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number
of permits issued
In additionalfill in necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3)
above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or
excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for
permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from
the portion of the lot in the floodplain corridor.
Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to
the outside edge of the floodplain corridor as feasible.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official
maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an
engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter
15.10, or where no jloodway has bee identified, to pass a one hundred
(100) year jlood without any increase in the upstream jlood height
elevation. The engineer shallconsider in the design the probability that
the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate
q~
27
expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the
minimum necessary to achieve property access, but in exempt from the
limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bridging of streams
identified as Riparian Preservation is subject to the requirements of
18.62.075.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in
Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps
adopted by chapter J 5. J 0, or up to the elevation contained in the official
maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where
no spe~ific elevations exist, then they must be flood proofid to an
elevation of ten fiet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil
Creek; to five fiet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve
creeks defined in section 18.63.050.B; and threefiet qbove the stream
channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable
floor shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in
the maps adopted in Chapter J 5.1 0, or to the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater.
Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an
elevation often fiet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil
Creek; to five fee above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve
creeks defined in section 18.62. 050.B; and three fiet above the stream
channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one
foot above visible evidence of high floodwater flow, whichever is greater.
The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to
the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the structure.
E.
To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than
floodplain corridor lands. In the case where development is permitted in
the floodplain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that
area which would have the shallowest flooding.
.-::.
F Existing lots with buildable land outside the floodplain corridor shall
locate all residential structures outside the corridor land, unless 50% or
more of the lot is within the floodplain corridor. For residential uses
lots that have more than 50% of the lot in corridor land, structures may be
located on that portion of the floodplain corridor that is two fiet or less
below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than
20 fiet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction
shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above.
9'
28
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of floodplain
corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official
maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be
cantilevered over the floodplain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if
the ciearancefromfinished grade is at least tenfeet in height, and is
supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of
floodwaters. The finish floor elevation may not be more than two feet
below the flood corridor elevations.
H
All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots
that contain floodplain corridor land must contain a building envelope on
alllot(s) the contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate
the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open
space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effict
is to prohibitfurther division of lots that are larger than the minimum
size permitted in the zoning ordinance.
~
#
ii
1. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or
additions located within the floodplain corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking and similar uses are
permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the
standards of Chapter 15.10.
J Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic
chemicals is not permitted in floodplain corridor lands.
K
Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek
designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire ore electric fence, or
similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not
including wire mesh or chain linkfencing. Fences shall not be constructed
across any identified riparian preservation creek Fences shall not be
constructed within any designated jloodway.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on floodplain
corridor lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070. C
and D, shall be jlood proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10.
M Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to
the floodplain corridor shall be located outside of the floodplain corridor,
except for crossing the corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Floodplain
Corridor as outlined below:
1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek
Floodplain corridor as part of development following the adopted North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permittedfor
that section of the Bear Creek Floodplain corridor between North
Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way.
r7
29
The new street shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on
the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having
the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor.
2. Proposed development is not in accord with the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception. (ORD
2808, added, 12/01/97)
The applicant has modified the original proposal regarding the location of the
Hamilton flood plain corridor boundary. The Site Plan shows the by the Rogue Valley
Council ofGovernments(RCOG) boundary as the floodplain corridor boundary. The
1989 flood plain corridor land map has been accepted as the City of Ashland Flood
official plain boundary.
..j
The proposed Cottages are sited outside the floodplain as per the provisions for
development in the Floodplain Corridor requirements. Units 8 & 9 cantilever over and
above the estimated floodplain boundary, built upon engineered piers elevating the units
above projected flood levels as per the development requirement. Cottages extending
over the RCOG flood plain boundary will be built upon engineered piers elevating the
units above projected flood levels. In no case will any unit will be built more than two (2)
feet below the estimated flood height level. The piers supporting the cottage structure will
be engineered and constructed to withstand possible damage from flooding and lateral
loads. The floodplain will be restored to a healthy and viable condition per
recommendation from the Conservation Division, arborist and the landscape architect.
An existing bridge over the creek will remain.
The applicant will comply with the above list of requirements for development of a
floodplain corridor in addition to the requirements of Chapter 15.10. Detailed design and
engineering of the buildings and site will be provided to City Staff prior to receiving a
building permit.
98
30
EXHIBITS
.:,
~
9,
. _. ._ _c. ...._...... _
SITE PLAN
f18
'"' ..,......~,..._-"._.,,-
'''"'
...... ----S€fllo\O<Nr
/,._~-
zj
'#
~
"'-'-
-',
:J
-,,-~-
" "
"" Q-j~,\:~~---
, '", \'. .
~. -\'.''''--!,
........... ". . "
\ \ ~,-~~''''
. '>--.. . ~ "-
\. I) ;;::~<_..'........--.....\ \ ,,~~\ '" '~
, ! tp." ~ -. '\ ". ,
,f! \ ffi~>>>,i\ \ \
\ ~ \ ! [
"/ .'
=YAlXm~
,...--_..~._--'"~. --
-.........\
'\,
"........\\
SITE PLAN -
Ict
SCALE 1.
-
-
501-0.
.\~-
, 1ft CUll! AUGIMI/T
31 '"
32 54
33 53
34 52
1I5 51
SII 50
411
!I
48
:!4 311
23 3ll
22 EXISTIIG PNIKIIG un--
40
Z1 41
20 42
19 43
18 f-1ll1ElIISIIICI -
44
11
45
~
46
41
13
i
j
i
I
1
i
I
I
i
I
"{V-"
~
~
SINOR_
IIWIIIl
i
r-j
J I
I
I
!
i
i
I
I
!
_----'\
------- \
I
I
r...r-\.-J..
r i\--..
_ I i \
~'i--.",
>....._~\ ,- "\
(
I
'-;.
\.
,
... ---j
I
l__~_
SAMPLE ELEVATIONS
&
FLOORPLANS
"'"
:,;;
....,
~:.~j
N~
..- .- ... -- ,. ,.. -'-. .-- ,
.. "..-.,~.. ._---
CREEKSIDE COTTAGES
ARCHITECTURAL STYlE AND CHARACTER
These images illustrate the craftsmen style and character intended for the homes at
Creekside Cottages. Boldly detailed windows and door frames, interesting porch railing
and post designs, and a strong color pallette that enhances and compliments the
cottage architecture.
Materials: cottage exteriors
wiU be constructed of paint
or stain grade wood.
Window and door frames
will be constructed with
2x6's, and fascias with
2x8's.. Recycled materials
will be utilized whenever
possible, including use of
re-milled wood from the
existing on-site barn which
will be removed as part of
the project.
#
~... ":
..",
~":1
:::t
Ie !J
SAMPLE INTERIORS
;~j
,..:.q
~
Ifj~
,....... --
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN FOR FLOOR PLAN ~A'
This 985 square foot plan comes with two bedrooms and one bath. The main floor is 798 square
feet, the loft provides another 187 square feet. The overall dimensions are 22 feet by 42 feet.
6tA
=
-
51
~
First. Floor Plan
7Se SF
:.
-
-
~
~
open to Ptslow
Loft;. Plan
1&75F
-. .:. . ._.. ffI- -'"
-- ,_.
.. . --
P' ._ __ .
.-.- -.-- .
~~.:~~~~.~; c-_.-_~ _' +
. --- - ~ - - - - -- -- ,
_.__.~-'._-
__._ ___h'___'_ .__._'..___'_
--_.--'..- ,.,--'..-""" '..
ItJo
IllUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN FOR FLOOR PLAN 'B'
This 855 square foot plan comes with one bedroom and one bath. The main floor is 707 square
feet, the loft provides another 148 square feet. The overall dimensions are 26 feet by 38 feet.
{;}
PERSPECTIVE VIEW
~o'.~
~
Bedroom
13-5x12-3
Porch
14-Ox6-2
Kitchen
l~-O
/f'"
I -
D~
lO-5~8-0
!
fiRST fLOOR PLAN
LOfT PLAN
/"".~
.L_...\..
'! -- '----- -.
- -' ..
.-
!b--~==! -. '-- .-
--~.-
il .......;1 ..... --
'. ~t~r
'Open to If---~l ..Loft__________
.1 mh______. ____m_____________!! __
Below". .lI-'j.. lO-9x7-4
.. --'-
_u _-0.
-----m.o i /___m____
pen
to Below
,
---....
,
lOb
SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
~;.;
..:,"
:;;;
107
"" .........;,..,.._...._=.~
"...
:--.;.....
;.";
',;.",~~
~
",.....,
A".)~ ThiJ~~M~
6~~
SET.l'LEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
.::t..'"C\Lbt"\.olC-'.j r
le-~
In consideration of the performance of the mutual
covenants contained herein, the undersigned agree as follows:
1. That stipulated judgments of dismissal shall enter in
two pending lawsuits which are known as Jackson County Circuit
Court Cases No. 89-858-E-l and 90-1008-L-3, respectively. The
remaining issue in the former case concerns allegations of
contempt which shall be specifically dismissed. The resulting
judgments of dismissal in each case shall be with prejudice and
without costs or attorney fees to any party.
2. That the $5,000 surety bond posted by Ashland
Investment Group, II shall, by stipulation of the undersigned,
be forthwith returned to Ashland Investment Group, II by the
Trial Court Administrator.
3. That the undersigned hereby mutually release one
another from liability for all civil claims which are directly
or indirectly connected with the two above-stated lawsuits
being hereby dismissed.
4. That henceforth the previously disputed property
boundary shall be the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 14 located in TownShip 39 South at
Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County,
Oregon, as shown on Registered Survey No. 7532. A-strip of
land of approximately 7 feet in width lying Westerly of the
said Quarter section line between such line and an existing
chain link fence has previously been in dispute concerning
ownership. This parcel of land can be seen on Registered
Survey No. 7532, and is hereafter referred to as "The Tract".
Ashland Investment Group, II, upon being furnished by
Fredlnburgs a proper legal description of ~ne Tract, shall
quitClaim by deed said tract to Robert and Ella Fredinburq.
_ 5. That, in addition to providinq the legal description
of The Tract, Fredinburgs shall also provide monuments at each
end of the true property boundary being hereby established,
with such monuments to be placed by a registered surveyor, and
with the monument located nearest Siskiyou Boulevard to be
placed flush with the surface of any existing asphalt so as not
to create a hazard to vehicles using the present driveway until
such time as Fredinburgs elect to relocate or replace that
curbline on the true property bound.ary so monumented.
6. That the trees and shrubs now located on The Tract
shall remain in place on an interim basis and shall continue to
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
Page -1-
IOf
I -
~
11. That all parties hereto shall promptly sign all
documents necessary to implement the terms of this agreement.
12. That this agreement shall be binding on the
undersigned as well as their successors or assigns.
13. That any dispute concerning this agreement, its
execution or its implementation shall be referred to Charles
McNair as arbitrator for his binding decision with the party
not prevailing in such decision to pay all attorney fees and
costs incurred by the other party or parties as well as the
arbi to IS fees and expenses as he'shall determine in his
.so disc tion.
.~.
"'-
:~
~-3 -70
DATE
and
JOEL REEDER, DATE
Attorney for Robert
Fredinburg and Ella Fredinburg
-..
IT IS SO AGREED:
ASHLAND INVESTMENT GROUP, II,
Partnership
~::-~,J
FREDINBURG, DATE
]'- ) '1- f(}
DATE ELLA FREDINBURG,
DATE
....;
....'
SETl'LEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
Page -3-
t09
.....~~
~. be watered by the existing sprinkler system, this pending
Fredinburgs decision to begin moving the fence or the curbline
to the true property boundary. At the time the decision is
made to move the fence or the curbline, Fredinburgs shall give
Ashland Investment Group, II, fifteen days written notice
actually delivered to the law firm of Ainsworth, Davis,
Gilstrap, Harris, Balocca & Fitch, or its successor prior to
moving the fence or curbline. Such notice shall also designate
any trees or shrubs located in The Tract which will be removed
as a result of moving the fence or the curbline. Upon receipt
of such notice, Ashland Investment Group, II shall have the
right to cap the existing sprinkler system at the true property
boundary, and the option, within the fifteen day period to .
transplant or otherwise remove the trees-and shrubs designated
by Fredinburgs in the said notice. Any tree or shrub so
designated which is not moved within the fifteen day period
shall be deemed abandoned by Ashland Investment Group, II.
--
7. That Fredinburgs shall solely bear all expenses of
moving the fence, of moving or removing any existing curb or
asphalt located on The Tract, of moving or removing the
existing sprinkler system, of moving or removing any portion of
the existing Talent Irrigation District system, and of moving
or removing any trees or shrubs not transplanted by Ashland
Investment Group, II within the above-stated fifteen day notice
period.
8. That Fredinburgs shall deed to Talent Irrigation
District for no monetary consideration a perpetual; non-
exclusive easement across The Tract for purposes of maintaining
the District's irrigation water delivery system. The
consideration for this deed shall be stated to be the
resolution of an existing dispute. Fredinburgs shall furnish
the proper legal description of The Tract for use as part of
such deeded easement, and this description shall be the same as
that to be provided in paragraph 4 above.
9. That upon execution and delivery by Fredinburgs of all
doc~ments provided for hereinabove, Ashland Investment Group,
II and Billy Hogue snaIl pay to Fredinburgs the sum of
$10,000.00, and shall furnish to Fredinburgs a reproducible
copy of the complete construction plans and drawings used for
the 62 unit Ashland project and the approximately 100 unit
Green Valley, Arizona, project.
10. That it is clearly understood and agreed that neither
Ashland Investment Group, II, nor Billy Hogue grant Fredinburgs
any permission to use the said plans for any purpose, but
neither will assert any claim against them for the use thereof.
-.;,:~
-..
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
Page ~2-
II tJ
LETTERS OF
AGREEMENT
.~)
JY
III
- ........",. ,_.-
~
-
-
LETl'ER OF AGREEMENT
10 Whomll May Concern:
This is a Letter of Agreement for the proposed Shared Access Drive and :Reciprocal
Parking Apement between die Ashley Seaior Apartments (" AshIeY1 and Creekside
~tt88ts \C~~. It is the intent ofboth panies to wade together to create a plan
that accommodates bolh propetlie$ 8Ild best utilizes the access and paddng fOJ" both
propenies.
1'hc1e exists a strip orland approximately se\O (7') fed wide that runs north to south for
approximately foU( huDckcd l\Wllly nine (4291 feet down the entire length oftbe
eomm~n west property line that is the Property orQeebide ("'Ibc property").
The Property is curreatly used by Ashley as a landscape M'ea of six feet and about one
fOOl of asphalt into tho eat(y dri'tIe. Credcside is intending upon building cottage bousing
and intends to use the Property 10r KCC$S aad parking. As. pert of the Settlement
^GJeemeJ1t and Mutual Beleage created ill ~ 1990 "'The Pr~ can be ta1am for
use by CRekside wich. fifteea day noIic:e. IfThc Propaty is raken, Ashley will suffer
from an inadequately sized drive and sideline setback IIIMIscapiDS.
Creekside and Ashley Mve oonccptually agreed to maiaIain the drive in its c:um:nl
condition and share access on the AshIe.y drive and proWle up to Dine (9) guest parkiog
spaCC$ in its pamng Joe. when available. The formal ~ wiD be drafted upon
approval by the City of Ashland of Creekside Project and the USDA Rural Development
1>cpartmc:at. Asblcy's )Qder.
Ashley Senior ApartmenlS is Owned by Asb1and Investment Group B, . LiMited
part:netship and Creebidc Cottages is owned by Sage Development. LLC.
-
Date:
Date: ~.\(. OL.
Signed:
Devian Aguircc
Sage Development. u.c
I-d
~u..dOle^~a B2vS
cleateD ZO 9J ""dy
9999-88"-1"9
II~
"--"-.. ..-....................~~
" -
,-.
11. That all parties hereto shall promptly sign all
documents necessary to implement the terms of this agreement.
~;\
:;"'7
12. That this agreement shall be binding on the
undersigned as well as their successors or assigns.
13. That any dispute concerning this agreement, its
execution or its implementation shall be referred to Charles
McNair as arbitrator for his binding decision with the party
not prevailing in such decision to pay all attorney fees and
costs incurred by the other party or parties as well as the
arbi to's fees and expenses as he"shall determine in his
'so dis ion.
,~~
~
~-3 -70
DATE
and
JOEL REEDER, DATE
Attorney for Robert
Fredinburq and Ella Fredinburq
~
IT IS SO AGREED:
ASHLAND INVESTMENT GROUP, II,
a Lim ted Partnership
FREDINBURG,
DATE
:;~"...
7'- J Y- fo
DATE ELLA FREDINBURG,
DATE
-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
Page -3- /18
) .
r--
be watered by the existing sprinkler system, this pending
Fredinburgs decision to begin moving the fence or the curbline
to the true property boundary. At the time the decision is
made to move the fence or the curbline, Fredinburgs shall give
Ashland Investment Group, II, fifteen days written notice
actually delivered to the law firm of Ainsworth, Davis,
Gilstrap, Harris, Balocca & Fitch, or its successor prior to
moving the fence or curbline. Such notice shall also designate
any trees or shrubs located in The Tract which will be removed
as a result of moving the fence or the curbline. Upon receipt
of such notice, Ashland Investment Group, II shall have the
right to cap the existing sprinkler system at the true property
boundary, and the option, within the fifteen day period to .
transplant or otherwise remove the trees-and shrubs designated
by Fredinburgs in the said notice. Any tree or sh~ub so
designated which is not moved within the fifteen day period
shall be deemed abandoned by Ashland Investment Group, II.
7. That Fredinburgs shall solely bear all expenses of
moving the fence, of moving or removing any existing curb or
asphalt located on The Tract, of moving or removing the
existing sprinkler system, of moving or removing any portion of
the existing Talent Irrigation District system, and of moving
or removing any trees or shrubs not transplanted by Ashland
Investment Group, II within the above-stated fifteen day notice
period.
8. That Fredinburgs shall deed to Talent Irrigation
District for no monetary consideration a perpetual,. non-
exclusive easement across The Tract for purposes of maintaining
the District's irrigation water delivery system. The
consideration for this deed shall be stated to be the
resolution of an existing dispute. Fredinburgs shall furnish
the proper legal description of The Tract for use as part of
such deeded easement, and this description shall be the same as
that to be provided in paragraph 4 above.
9. That upon execution and delivery by Fredinburgs of all
doc~ments provided for hereinabove, Ashland Investment Group,
II and Billy Hogue snaIl pay to Fredinburgs the sum of
$10,000.00, and shall furnish to Fredinburgs a reproducible
copy of the complete construction plans and drawings used for
the 62 unit Ashland project and the approximately 100 unit
Green Valley, Arizona, project.
10. That. it is clearly understood and agreed that neither
Ashland Investment Group, II, nor Billy Hogue grant Fredinburgs
any permission to use the said plans for any purpose, but
neither will assert any claim against them for the use thereof.
-Yr/
-
-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
Page -:-2-
J I Lf
~.._._-
LETTER
OF
SUPPORT
~'jJ)
--
~)
115
The CBM Group, Inc. + Property Management
Letter of Support
May 7, 2002
~{)
On bch.-lJ r of the A!;blcy Senior Apartments, a l:cderally S\lhsidized Low Income Senior
Apartment Community J extend my complete and total support for the proposed
Crl:.'Cksidc CoU.lges.
We have been a afforc.1able hou:dng provider in Ashland, Oregon since 1982 and
()ur parent company is responsible for assisting and managing over 200 projects for
Sl'niors and }lomilics in the Western United States providing shelter to over 8,000
hOl1seholds.
The Creekside Collage project represents a viablc alternative to entry lcvc1 housing with
a high degree oflivability" It bas been OUI C%pcriencc that smaller dwelling units are
complctdy acceptable and often preferable to many single.~ and couples looking for
h()n~;ng.
Our [>rojcct has experienced 100% occupancy sinco its opening and we cum:ntly have a
six (6) month waiting Ji~L lJistorically. we bave never ulilizcd more than 75-80 % of our
JY.lrliing Jot and do hnvc snrpllL~ parking available.
Tkeau."IC ofthis., we bave ncgotinled and agreed to ~arc our main access driveway and
aJlow the use of seven (7) of our parking spaces on our $ite. Ihis sbarcd use better utilim..
nul' JlfO~y, dccrca.o;cs tmffie risk. to our neighbors and us and serves our neighborhood.
I [you have (lucstions. please feel free to contact us directly.
Sincerely.
ASHLEY SF.NI01{ APARTMENTS
1010 Racquet Club Drive. Suite 108 . Auburn; CA 95603-3000
(530) 823-2477 . (630l 823-2585
II'
,..... . - -
TOPOGRAPHICAL
MAP
.;~ 1
..
.~~. ,
;';J
.".
1/1
Property !ines_c:l~~pr~vid~ for lr!ormation only, noLscalable
~..n._ n_. --T"' -\- n._ "",
.' \
. " \
'. ' ~
''--'/' 'P' ,,"
, , ~'
., "
. "
,: ,';' - - --
- - - _ L _ I ,," :: _-
" -' '
" , ~ ' ~ _ _ _ _' " 1
:' :' '" "
, ",' : ;
,\\/'~. .. i...
, '\.., '. '.: ' " : "
, \'''' " " ' ' ,
, ~ ':,,: ,.,: ",: ", , '
'", "', '.. \ ""'" ...., ...." " , ' , ,::',: :
'" ~"', ' /
", '",.., ~,\". , .,
,,_\ . J J '"
"""">'~""\'::~:",," :, \, :"'---"
" ','," ',',', ' " ,
" ~,,~ ~ '\. ,,-" ',",', ' ,
~:~~
, II
, ,
, ' ,
, ,
I.
Ii
i!
I
!'
~!
i.
Ii
------
~'-..
. : /
" /
" .
~ - - - - ~ - I
LJ1
-,-",,-,"""',
II
,jl
,.,' if
II
~.
II
!I
II
II
d
II
-- I
.',,'" II
II
, :
\ ......
\ '....,
2Q
I
. " I
I
I
I
II
, , , II
. , , :1
, " '11
50 Feet~. ___ _____,-- _---" "'~',,"'j
~ ~ ~'- r ," ... " I
~
I
AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPH
It;
-::;j;i
~
11'1
-.~.. - I
7'~::!
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
I~()
,...... -- -
Property lines are provided for information only, not scalable
;P
~
so 0
r--.....--..........-
Scale: 1. c5O' I ~I
DEMOLITION
PERMIT
APPLICA TION
:or:.;
-',
IJ}.~
--- ._. ~. -... "..- '
,0 .......~ _~ _
:;j~
--
_."C'..,
:...F;;'
'''-''';~
~
([)
City of Ashland Planning Department
Demolition Application
April 27, 2002
Owner:
Property Address:
Sage Development, LLC
2275 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, OR.
Structure to be demolished:
Age of Structure:
Lot Size:
Zoning:
Four'Thousand Two Hundred (4200) sq. ft. barn
Ninety (90) years
1.77 acres
R-3
The property consists of a 1400 sq ft house in the front and 2 substandard cottages in the
middle of the lot, The barn sits at the northern comer of the property, is 26 feet high and
sits approximately 8 feet from the rear property line,
The property is rectangular in shape and consists of an existing flood plain that covers
over 60% of the site, effectively eliminating any residential potential for that portion,
Additionally the property has over 62 mature trees that also impact the usable area.
The barn itself is in average condition and the wood siding has salvage and recycling
potential to the applicant for the new cottage project, The foundation is constructed at
grade level in a poorly mixed concrete footing and afthe west side where the barn ~rops
offin a 7'% slope the foundation is comprised of river rock mortar mix which is unstable.
The applicant applies for the demolition permit under Section 15,04.216, subparagraph a;
"The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on the site as part of an economically
beneficial use of the property".
The applicant has applied to the City of Ashland for approval to build a 14- unit cottage
Planned Unit Development If that project should not be approved the applicant shall
propose another multi-family project for this property.
It is the intention of the applicant to dismantle the barn salvage and re-mill the wood
siding and utilize the planks in new construction on this site. The applicant wishes to
begin the salvage and re-milling of the barn because of the time needed to carefully
1
I~A
dismantle the barn and prepare the salvaged wood, If the applicant cannot demolish the
barn prior to project approval, some salvage opportunity may be lost,
The property is zoned R-3 and as such cannot utilize a substandard non-conforming barn
structure into any relevant development scenario. Given that multi-family residential
construction is the only permissible use for this property, the barn is functionally and
economically obsolete, The size, location and configuration and condition of the barn
exclude its relevancy from incorporation into a new development
':;;:"'~
It is the intention of the applicant to dismantle the barn salvage and re-mill the wood
siding and utilize the planks in new construction on this site. The applicant wishes to
begin the salvage and re-milling of the barn because of the time needed to carefully
dismantle the barn and prepare the salvaged wood. If the applicant cannot demolish the
barn prior ,to project approval, some salvage opportunity may be lost..
'~
~,..-
As such, the cost of salvaging the existing wood siding is not economically sound~
however is warranted as valuable to the project to be built as well as the community at
large, However it is important to note that all salvage and recycling efforts require
significant time as well as financial commitment and do require consideration as such
from the City Planning Department
Thank you for your consideration.
Devian Aguirre
2
I~~
.,-"'^' -,-
TREE REPORT
1~5'
... ....... ~
ARBOR WEST TREE EXPERTS
Philip J. Frazee, B.S.
P.o. Box 453
Eagle Point, Oregon 97524
(541) 826-4506
email: arborwst@intemetcds.com
ISA Certified Arborist # PN0538
Workmans Compensation: SAIF # 48215
Oregon Construction Contractors Board # 70865
July 14, 2002
PRELIMINARY ARBORIST REPORT
Site Location: Creekside Cottages
2275 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Date of site inspection: July 3, 2002
Present: Philip Frazee - Arborist, Alan Pardee - Landscape Architect
Weather: Clear, sunny
General: Trees were inspected visually, with rubber mallet and probe. No root crown
inspections were performed.
.'1(:
Tree #1 - Quercus garryana - Oregon White Oak
General Condition: poor - fair. Structure: fair - good.
Approximate age: 90 - 110 years. Dbh: 20"
Detail: Observable decline at root flare wi recess below root flare. Bell flare at root buttress -
presence of turpentine ants and black stain flux at 2 points. Major mistletoe infestation on 2"
branches off of secondary branches. Significant loss of large limbs. Minimal viable foliage.
General overall decline.
Recommendation: removal prior to development.
Tree #2 - Quercus garryana - Oregon White Oak
General Condition: poor. Structure: poor.
Approximate age: 125 -150 years. Dbh: 20"
Detail: Decline of root system indicated. Major mistletoe infestation. Minimal viable foliage.
General overall decline. .
Recommendation: removal prior to development.
I~'
T'" - -
Tree #3 - Quercus garryana - Oregon White Oak
General Condition: poor. Structure: poor.
Approximate age: 150 years, Dbh: 26"
Detail: Evidence of long-term impact of major mistletoe infestation (throughout canopy, trunk
and primary branches). Significant loss of large limbs.
Recommendation: removal prior to development.
Tree #4 - Quercus garryana - Oregon White Oak
General Condition: poor. Structure: poor.
Approximate age: 100 years. Dbh: 18"
Detail: Noticeable wound at root flare. Minimal mistletoe infestation. Moderate small limb
loss. Buttress wound at southeast side. Borer exit holes at wound.
,~~ Recommendation: removal prior to development.
-. Tree #5 - Populus trichocarpa - Black Cottonwood
General Condition: fair - good. Structure: good.
Approximate age: 40 years. Dbh: 24"
Detail: Multi-stem tree. Noticeable fracture on secondary limb to north. Three secondary limbs
heading due east - concern regarding weight. Needs thinning to avoid wind damage. Indication
of slime flux infection at root flare.
Tree #6 - Populus trichocarpa - Black Cottonwood
General Condition: fair - good. Structure: fair - good.
Approximate age: 35 years. Dbh: 14"
Detail: Single trunk tree. Noticeable lean to southwest. Slime flux infection.
Tree#7 - Alnus rubra - Red Alder
General Condition: fair. Structure: extremely poor.
Approximate age: 80 years. Dbh: 36"
Detail: Multi-stem tree. Possible fractures in all secondary limbs. Co-dominant secondary
stems with extensive contact points. Included bark and invaginations at points of large limb
attachments.
Recommendation: removal prior to development (tree will eventually self-destruct).
Tree #8 - Salix spp - Native Willow
General Condition: , extremely poor / senescent. Structure: extremely poor.
Approximate age: 65 years. Dbh: 30"
Detail: Multi-stem tree. Loss of secondary vertical stem. Evidence of extensive borer
infestation at root flare. Major lean to remaining stem. Noticeable fracture on secondary limb to
north.
Recommendation: removal as soon as possible.
1~7
Tree #9 - Populus trichocarpa - Black Cottonwood
General Condition: fair - good. Structure: poor.
Approximate age: 90 years. Dbh: 3 @ 14" (multiple leaders)
Detail: Multi-stem tree. Three co-dominant leaning stems. Structure exhibits potential for
failure.
Tree #10 - Populus trichocarpa - Black Cottonwood
General Condition: fair - good. Structure: poor.
Approximate age: 60 years. Dbh: 34" .
Detail: Multi-stem tree, Leggy habit. Sweep of main stem to northwest due to competition.
Major lateral to northwest exhibits potential for failure - cabling would be needed to reduce
potential for failure.
Tree #11 - Populus trichocarpa - Black Cottonwood
General Condition: extremely poor / senescent. Structure: extremely poor.
Approximate age: 80 years. Dbh: 40"
Detail: Multi-stem tree. Three co-dominant trunks. Structure exhibits potential for failure.
Recommendation: removal prior to development.
Tree #12 - Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas Fir
General Condition: fair - good. Structure: good.
Approximate age: 45 years. Dbh: 14"
Detail: Single stem. Lop-sided growth due to competition. Wound on south side. Evidence by
tree of attempts to sap out beetle attack.
Tree #13 - Calocedrus decurrens - Incense Cedar
General Condition: fair. Structure: excellent.
Approximate age: 65 years. Dbh: 28"
Detail: Foliage discolored possibly due to soil compaction near base. Woodpecker damage may
indicate internal insect activity.
Tree #14 - Ulmus pumila - Siberian Elm
General Condition: poor - fair. Structure: fair.
Approximate age: 30 years. Dbh: 12"
Detail: Single trunk. Lean to south. Evidence of slime flux.
Tree #15 - Quercus kelloggii - California Black Oak
General Condition: poor. Structure: poor.
Approximate age: 150 years. Dbh: 40"
Detail: Single trunk. Large vertical decay column (hollow) in central stem. Poor historic
pruning practices - flat cuts, heading (topping). Fruiting bodies on north and west sides at root
flare and on major limbs. Lean to southeast. At northeast side of primary stem near scaffold
branching - longitudinal split (crack) in one of the primary stems and column of decay.
Mistletoe on small wood and secondary limbs.
I~r
Recommendation: removal as soon as possible,
Tree #16 - Quercus kelloggii - California Black Oak
General Condition: pOOL Structure: pOOL
Approximate age: 110 years. Dbh: 30"
Detail: Single trunk. Largely dead. 30% of foliage remains. Major borer exit wounds. Poor
historic pruning practices - flat cuts, heading (topping). Lean to southwest.
Recommendation: removal as soon as possible.
Tree #17 - Malus spp. - Apple (fruit tree)
General Condition: fair - good, Structure: faiL
Approximate age: 35 years. Dbh: 12"
Detail: Single trunk.
Recommendation: Needs to be thinned and pruned.
{jj
Tree #18 - Prunus spp. - Cherry (fruit tree)
General Condition: poor. Structure: poor.
Approximate age: 35 years. Dbh: 12"
Detail: Single trunk. Major decline. Structurally unsound.
Recommendation: removal prior to development.
Tree #19 - Calocedrus decurrens - Incense Cedar
General Condition: good. Structure: fair - good.
Approximate age: 25 years. Dbh: 10"
Detail: Single trunk. Slight sweep at base. Gaps in branching due to competition.
Remaining Trees - Populus trichocarpa - Black Cottonwood (juvenile hedgerow along eastern
boundary)
General Condition: good. Structure: poor - fair.
Approximate age: 6 - 20 years. Dbh: from 6" to 14"
Detail: Generally multi-stem with co-dominant stems and poor structure. Many exhibiting
included bark at point oflimb attachment. These trees will be prone to wind throw damage,large
and small limb loss.
Philip Frazee
Certified Arherist
I ~tf
ASHLEY APARTMENTS
PARKING LOT
PLAN
if;
~
:g
1P
_. .- _.' - .~ "
1$0
UTILITY PLAN
I ~I
storm design floodplain. The Ferrero floodplain study utilized data taken from peak
gauge height measurements along Bear Creek for each year from 1910, 1920 and
1940 to 2000. Under the previous proposal, a physical constraints permit was
requested to allow the engineered supporting piers for several units to be
constructed with the floodplain corridor. In the current plan, the applicant has
accepted the location of the adopted Ashland flood plain corridor and does not
request consideration of modifying the boundary.
Since the applicant's request to postpone the review ofthe application at the July 9,
2002 Commission meeting, the location of the condominium units has be slightly
changed. Unlike the previous plan that proposed having a certain number of units
encroach into the floodplain corridor, the current plan locates all condominium units
outside of the floodplain corridor. The westerly portion'ofunits 8 and ,9, however,
are proposed to cantilever over and above the floodplain <?orridor boundary. It is
Staff s understanding through discussions with the applicant that the engineering
supporting piers will be located outside the corridor boundary, while elevating the
finished floor of the units two feet above the 100-year floor elevation.
II. Project Impacts and Staff Concerns.
Physical Constraints Review Permit - Flood Plain Corridor Lands
The previous plans included proposed revisions to the flood plain boundary, as well as a
request to permit a percentage of the units to encroach into Ashland's flood plain
corridor. The current proposal does not include a request to modify the Ashland's flood
plain corridor. The adopted flood plain corridor boundaries are identified on the plan and
no part of any structure is within the corridor. A portion of units 8 and 9 is cantilevered
beyond the corridor boundary, with the supporting piers located outside the flood plain
corridor. As required by ordinance, the floor levels of all units will be elevated two feet
above the 100-year base flood elevation.
With each previous plan, Staff raised questions and concerns with suggested revisions to
the City's flood plain corridor, as well as with proposed encroachments of units into the
floodplain area. As noted above, the latest plan utilizes the adopted flood plain corridor
boundary and restricts the location of units to areas outside the flood plain corridor.
Consequently, Staff supports the latest plan with respect to the proposed location of
condominiums relative to Ashland's flood plain corridor.
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
, Page 2 of 11
~5
Fire Protection
Prior to the June 12,2002 public hearing, City of Ashland Assistant Chief, David Hard
submitted a memo outlining his concerns with the project. The project civil engineer,
landscape architect and Assistant Chief Dave Hard met on-site to discuss changes to the
Ashley Senior Apartments parking lot that would insure adequate fire apparatus access. A
revised Parking Plan has been included with the application. The revised plan includes
changes in existing curb alignments and re-striping of required parking spaces. It is
Staff s understanding that the proposed plan complies with fire apparatus and turnaround
requirements of the Ashland Fire Department.
Off-Street Parking
The 13-unit condominium proposal requires a total of21 off-street parking spaces. The
application proposes utilizing some parking located within the neighboring apartment
complex. The adjoining 62-unit senior housing development is required to have 62 off-
street parking spaces. Upon a site visit, 64 parking spaces were identified within the rear
parking lot of the senior housing development, two more than required.
The new Parking Plan identifies a reconfigured Ashley Senior Complex parking area
consisting of approximately 65 parking spaces. Three parking spaces have been identified
for use by the Creekside Condominium project. Representatives of the Ashley Senior
Apartments have submitted a "Letter of Support" agreeable to sharing use of the main
access driveway, as well as specified number of parking spaces. Accordingly, a mutual
driveway and parking easement will be recorded as part of the project ensuring perpetual
use of the driveway and three parking spaces.
Distances between Buildings - Variance
The application includes a Variance to the following requirement described in Section
18.28.040 E.
3, The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half (Y:r) the sum of
the height of both buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance be
less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply to portions of the same
buildings separated from each other by a court or other open space.
The units have an average building height of approximately 15.5 feet. Consequently, the
distance between units should be approximately 15.5 feet. The application requests a
variance to this requirement, citing the property's physical constraints and limited
building area.
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
Page 3 of 11
$"~
In Staff s opinion, information in the record is available to justify a finding in support of
the variance request. The physical nature of the property is unusual due to the steep slope
along the west side and the large area within the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor. Of the
1.77 - acre site, less than one third can be developed due to physical constraints. Also, the
locations of existing trees limit choices in home placement.
In Staffs opinion, the requirement setting a minimum distance between principal
buildings was intended to apply to larger, multi-unit structures. Attractive, comfortable
and functional living arrangements can be accomplished by siting buildings much closer
than the standard requires. The cottage-style unit proposed presents a compact, high
quality living environment generally not seen in new construction in Ashland. Given the
constraints of the site, the placement of the units considers limitations of the land, while
providing a living environment with small private yard spaces ,and access to a significant
area of common/open space.
Building Orientation
The previous site plan included an Administrative Variance to City Site Design and Use
Standards with respect to Building Orientation for units 1 and 3. The revised application
no longer requests the exception to City design standards. The footprints of units 1 and 3
have been modified such that the primary orientation of each building is toward Siskiyou
Boulevard.
Tree Protection and Removal
Trees six inches or greater in diameter at breast height have been identified on the site
plan. An arborist report is included in the application providing an overall assessment of
the condition of significant trees in the developable area. From the report, trees 9, 10, 12,
13, 18 and 19 have been identified for preservation. In addition, the ''''On-Site Tree
Summary" identifies a total of 103 on-site trees. These trees are broken down into the
following categories: Riparian, Oak, fruit, Elm and Conifer. A total of29 trees are
proposed for removal as follows: Riparian (20), Oak (6), fruit (1), Elm (1) and Conifer
(1). The majority of trees identified for removal are Black Cottonwoods. In general, these
trees are not recommended for retention when situated close to structures because of limb
failure.
Given the limited building area on the site, Staff believes the applicant has presented a
plan that attempts to preserves as many existing, healthy trees as possible while
considering the safety of future residents. The arborist report provides recommendations
for removal based upon an on-site assessment of individual trees. While 29 trees are
proposed for removal, approximately 75 percent of the site (mostly within the flood
plain) will be maintained in common open space, allowing for the retention of the
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
Page 4 of 11
57
.,....... ,-~
majority of existing trees as well as the planting of additional, more appropriate species.
Note: The 19 trees identified in the Arborist Report have been tagged on-site with orange
ribbon.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for approval of a Physical Constraints Review Permit to allow
development within a Floodplain Corridor are described in AMC 18.62 as follows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been ,considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized. .
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than
reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the
existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance
In addition, for all land use actions that could result in development of the Flood
plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter
15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where
applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as
defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material
used for fill.
3. The amount offill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and
other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to
the following:
a, Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and
private street and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the
above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
, Page 5 of 11
E'!
onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill
materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent
necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material
shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of
the Flood plain Corridor as feasible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps
adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings
shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been
identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream
flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the
culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and acconmIodate expected overflow.
Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve
property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or
bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation is subject to the requirements of
18.62.075.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one
foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the
elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height
is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood proofed to an
elevation often feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet
above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways
identified on the official maps.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be
raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or
to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever
height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an
elevation often feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet
above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways
identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water
flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be
certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the structure.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain
Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor
area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest
flooding.
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all
residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the ,lot is within
the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
, Page 6 of 11
s,
r" ,~..
than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the
Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official
maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek.
Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands
that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section
18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor
for a distance of20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height,
and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The
finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor
elevations.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots that contain
Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope onalllot(s) that contain(s)
buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses pefIJlitted in the underling
zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall
apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the
minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance.
I. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions
located within the Flood plain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for
residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not
permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands.
K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by
this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect
debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences
shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation
creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor
Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-
proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10.
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood
plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the
Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below:
1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor
as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This
exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor
between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street
shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map,
and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within
the corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception.
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
, Page 7 of 11
'0
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord.
2655, 1991)
The criteria for approval of a rear yard setback and distance between buildings
Variance are described in AMC 18.100 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 SI, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff supports approval of the application as proposed. While the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning designation anticipate high-density housing for the site, the property's
physical limitations restrict the variety of development options available to,the applicant.
In Staffs opinion, earlier concerns over development within and adjacent to the flood
plain corridor and the adequate provision of fire apparatus access and turnaround area
have been addressed. In addition, the high-density zoning coupled with the natural
features of the property (i.e. flood plain, slopes and trees) appears to provide support for
exceptions to setback standards intended for larger scale structures on less constrained
sites.
As noted earlier, the application presents a new housing product not evident over recent
years. Ashland's Housing Needs Analysis highlights the need for smaller single family
housing types on smaller lots. However, the trend over the past decade has been to
develop larger town homes on smaller lots. Staff concurs with the applicant that the 855
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
Page 8 of 11
"
and 985 square foot cottage condominiums provide a needed single-family alternative.
Staff suggests that the following conditions be attached to any approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
here.
2) That engineered construction drawings for the installation of all project utilities and
street improvements along Siskiyou Boulevard be provided for review by the
Engineering Division and approval by the Staff Advisor. The final design for frontage
improvements shall be consistent with Ashland Local Street Standards and coordinated
with the Oregon Department of Transportation. Street improvements:shall consist of a
six -foot bike lane, on-street parking (where noted), curb and. gutter, storm drain,
seven foot planting strip and six-foot sidewalk. The Staff Advisor may approve the
omission of a planting strip due to excessive grade adjoining the creek channel, as well
as to reduce impacts to existing, healthy trees.
3) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated
with the project, including but not limited to detention ponds and piped systems, be
submitted for review and approval by the departments of Public Works and Planning,
prior to issuance of a building permit
4) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association be provided at the
time of signature of the Condominium Plat and shall describe the responsibility for the
maintenance of all common area landscaping, pathways, planting strips and street trees.
5) That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, be installed along the frontage of
Siskiyou Boulevard. Exceptions to street tree location and spacing may be approved by
the Staff Advisor, based upon the location of existing trees and areas of severe slope.
Street trees with root barriers to be installed within the planting strip prior to the
certificate of occupancy. Root barrier design, if required, shall be submitted for review
and approval at the time building permit submission.
6) That all easements for public walkways, sewer, water, electric, and streets shall be
indicated on the condominium survey plat as proposed by the applicant and required by
the City of Ashland.
7) That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan and irrigation system plan
incorporating the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission for all common
areas and planting strips be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor
prior to issuance of a building permit.
8) That a site, size and species specific floodplain restoration plan, as noted in the
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
Page 9 of 11
(t,A
application, be provided by the project landscape architect and arborist for review by
the Tree Commission Staff liaison and approval of the Staff Advisor. Landscaping
improvements to the floodplain corridor shall be installed before the issuance of
certificate of occupancy for more than 50 percent of the units.
9) That installation of fencing is prohibited within the floodplain corridor. All fencing
along the public walkway (running north to south) shall not exceed a height of four (4)
feet.
10) That a final grading plan accompany the building permits and be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building
permit.
11) That all common open space improvements (i.e. landscaping,)rrigation, etc.) be
installed or bonded for in accordance with the procedures in the Subdivision chapter
prior to signature of the condominium survey plat.
12) That all requirements of the AsWand Fire Department be complied with prior to the
signature of the final survey plat or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each
new home.
13) That required bicycle parking in accordance with the numbers and design specifications
described in chapter 18.92 be identified on the site plan with the building permit, and
shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
14) That silt fencing be installed adjacent to the flood plain corridor boundary, in accordance
with manufacturer's recommendations, prior to site disturbance or grading that may cause
erosion into the floodplain.
15) That a tree protection plan be submitted for review by the Tree Commission liaison and
approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall
identify the location and placement of temporary fencing around the drip lines of trees
identified for preservation. The amount offill within the drip line shall not exceed 12
inches in height, and the fill shall consist of a sandy composition, rather than clay, to
enhance drainage. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan, and
shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around the
trunk/crown root.
16) That no portion of any unit shall be located upon land within the Ashland flood plain
corridor. A portion of the unit may be cantilevered beyond the floodplain corridor
boundary, with all structural supports located outside the corridor. The finished floor
level of all portions of each unit shall be elevated two-feet above the 100-year base flood
elevation. Finished floor elevations shall be noted on the condominium plat.
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
Page 10 of 11
'3
,...-' -- -
17) That the property owners of the Ashley Senior Apartment complex grant the Creekside
Condominium development use ofthree parking spaces and driveway access in
perpetuity. Such right to use the off-site parking and the existing driveway access must be
evidenced by recordation of a vehicle parking and mutual driveway access easement
reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland Legal Department.
Planning Action: 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Addendum
Page 11 of 11
'If
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
August 13, 2002
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Tree Commission (){>
RE:
Pardee Project on Siskiyou (P A 2002-052)
The Tree Commission offers the following recommendation regarding the
above mentioned project:
Remove all the poplars along the chain link fence according to the arborist
report. This should include tree #20 which is clearly a potential failure and
hazard tree. These trees are in poor condition and structurally unsound. It
appears that remedial pruning would be dangerous, expensive and would
require annual follow-up. Construction activities will likely cause additional
failures.
As a mitigation to the tree canopy loss, the Tree Commission recommends:
l)tree planting along the 'fence line' to the greatest degree possible;
2) and, the incorporation of "botanical islands" in the parking'areas
with smaller trees which will grow quickly providing relatively
immediate canopy cover and additional plantings to soften'the impact
of the removal of the poplars. The canopy loss in unfortunate, but the
Tree Commission believes the recommended mitigation is an
opportunity to plant a more suitable species of trees in this urban
environment.
3)The plum trees along the driveway which are proposed to be
removed should be mitigated with 1: 1 replacement trees and planted
as close to their present location as possible so as to shade the
driveway.
CONSERVATION DMSION
20 East Mail S1reet '
Ashland. Onlgon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541~-20622
Fax: 541~11
TTY: 800-73S-2lOO
&'5
F.'
A floodplain restoration plan should be submitted and installed prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Tree and landscape material protection during construction should include
silt fencing around the floodplain corridor boundary and should be installed
to City specifications.
The applicant deserves credit for flexibility shown as the plan has evolved
and a clear devotion to the larger sustainable concepts of ecosystem
protection, enhancement, and tree replacement in this particularly sensitive
riparian corridor.
CONSERVATION DMSION
20 East Main street
Ashland, 0Ieg0n 97520
WVIW.ashIand.or.us
bb
,.,
Tel: 541-552-20622
Fax: 541~11
TTY: 800-735-ZIOO
y
-=-
r ~ ~
~ /~ <D e
<ID (2) e
A <IDe
18'~ - ~ -16'-0"
@ \ At:
,
,.. ~ \ 13
@ ////~
~ ~ 14
~' ~ 22'-0' _18'-0'
QJ\ \ 15
V ///// @
16 r
v~~ ~~.'.'~
f#!O l~ '~~, ~
,~ /
~
~~ ~~
j~
.Ll~ 1,,'-""''''
] ~~ 'i\o'~1NT81
~c;"';;;;;,>"'<"'''''<J''
~ J ,y.\..
V
r---t"
1: f=,""
~ . ',N),:, ,
_ ,.... .,r,;
IllNT1!1';
v',
\. ....
,~
~
~
'\ _..- n
I
J J
~Uy
1NT7
l!J ~
.... ~/;5At:
~ '-
e@
I-- W- ~
e@
-~ '-. ----
q~
__ ..lI:
..;--
"(
'~ -.J
1'"N
~
f"
I-
~ ~1 ~
,''\ \ t
)~
~
v--
......
-- ,..-
~~l~
~~
lNT
'",:"
/
1/
-
?
,......
'0
18'-0'- 22'-0'
26'
25
24
23
22
v
2 e
3 C
4 e
5 C
6 e
1 e
8 e
9 e
10 e
11 e
12 e
---
25'-0'
.<~:::" Z "' J . ~l L7
11".; .... ig_ 1\ LV
~~-" ,L 1\ /~
~ ' :~/J~__~ <<:
~ ~~ \ ~ -~
~ ~ ,-A 'i ;(\ 1 1\ l---'
~~ 1,#;l~~~V:~
'- \U~~~~ ~ "
~~ ~ ~ ~ 30, ~ """-{:
~ ~ ~ ....r.____
~
~
67
v v vv-~ J v-v~
',\-?: 20'-0' 53 e
NEWCURBALKlNItI:NT ~
55 e
28 C 52
56
29 C 51
e 50 51
30
e 49 58
31
e 48 59
32
3318'-0"- 41 60
...18'-0' 25'-0' 18'-0" _
48 61
34
45 62
35 C
36 C
J1 C
38 C
21 typical .
20 this row 39 C
9'-0' ! <<l C
19 wide
41 e
18
11
42 C
/////:
43
<<
/////;
ASHlEY SENIOR HOUSING
LEGEND
CREEKSIDE PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 21 (includes 3 spaces from
Ashley and 2 on-street credits)
21 ASHLEY PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 62 (gross total 65 with
3 spaces provided to Creekside)
COMPACT PARKING SPACES
Number of compact spaces:
CREEKSIDE - 8
ASHLEY - 31
PARKING PLAN:
CREEKSIDE CanAlES
AND ASHLEY SENIOR HOUSINI
SCALE 1- = 40'.0-
~.-.-...
CREEKSIDE COTTAGES
ONSITE TREE SUMMARY
JULY 2002
-App\\Cf'< rJt-- FKIA ,t>. t-
TOTAL TREES ONSITE:
SIZE OF TREES
# OF TREES
0/0
TOTAL LIVE TREES
TOTAL DEAD TREES
33
62
~ ~
95
.~
103
(32%)
(60%)
( 8%)
LESS THAN 6" DBH
GREATER THAN 6" DBH
GREATER THAN 6" DBH- (DEAD)*
TOTAL ONSITE TREES:
(100%)
*NOTE: THESE TREES NOT INCLUDED IN ARBORIST REPORT
BY SPECIES:
SPECIES # OF TREES %
RIPARIAN- (LIVE) 79 (77%)
RIPARIAN- (DEAD) ~ ( 8%)
(85%)
OAK 7 ( 6%)
FRUIT 3 ( 3%)
ELM 1 (1%)
CONIFER 5 ( 5%)
TOTAL TREES BY SPECIES 103 (100%)
TREES TO BE REMOVED BY SPECIES:
SPECIES
# OF TREES
RIP ARIAN- (LIVE)
OAK
FRUIT
ELM
CONIFER
20
6
1
1
1
TOTAL TREES REMOVED
29
,~
" )
~)
C)
(~
(7)
(~)'
-
fS;
~
(~)
)
;-)
, '\
J
, ;-'
)
)
'-'.)
'8
J)
D
U
8
....J '
-(
:)
)
j
.J
..)
)
Alan Pardee, ASLA
landscape Architect
land Planning Consultant
Post Office Box 1651
Mount Shasta, CA 96067
Phone 530'938'1858
FAX 530'938'2744
July 23, 2002
CREEKSIDE
COTTAGES
Site Review Approlal Application
for a Tbirtee,n Unit Cottage Style
Condominium Delelopment
,.J
"
California License #2813
Oregon License #435
tNl'4~
PROJECT NARRATIVE/FINDINGS
24 July 2002
PROJECT NAME:
Creekside Cottages
:.-:,Z)
TYPE OF P~G ACTION: A request for Site Review approval for a 13-unit
Cottage-style condominium development, including
a Physical Constraints Permit to allow
"development" within the City of Ashland
Floodplain Corridor. The aPl'lication includes a
Variance to rear yard setback standards, and for the
distance between buildings.
-~~.'
The Pond at Creekside
70
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Owner! Applicant:
Sage Development, LLC
Devian Aguirre
183 Lincoln Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-4114
Land Use Planner! Architect:
Tom R. Giordano
2635 TakeIma Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-482-9193
,~
Landscape Architect/Land Planner:
Alan Pardee, ASLA
P.O. Box 1651
Mount Shasta, California 96067
530-938-1858
Surveyor:
L.J. Friar and Associates
816 W. 8th Street
Medford, Oregon 97501
541-772-2782
Civil Engineer:
Michael P. Thornton
Thornton Engineering
1236 Disk Drive, Suite 1
Medford, Oregon 97501
541. 857-0864
Geologist:
Tom Fererro
Fererro Geologic Service
760 Oak Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-2452
Arborist:
Phil Frazee
Arborwest
P.O. Box 453
Eagle Point, Oregon 97524
541-826-4506
7/
2
SITE DATA:
Project Address: 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard
Legal Description: 39-1E 14 CB Tax Lot 3600
Comprehensive Plan Design: High Density
Multi-Family Residential
Zoning Designation: R-3
Area of Property: 77,010 S.F. 1.77 acres 100%
;;1~
.....
."" Area of Building Footprints: 11,600 S.F. 15%
--..:;,.
Area of Paving: 5,750 S.F. 7.4%
Sidewalks
Pmking,Stree~,Driveways
Area of Landscape! Openspace
Recreation: 59,751 S.F. 77.6%
Parking RequiredJProvided:
Required Provided
9 - 1 Bedroom units @ 1.5 spaces/unit = 13.5 16 on-site spaces
(15 covered)
4 - 2 Bedroom uni~ @ 1.75 spaces/unit = 7.0 3 off site spaces
(Ashley Apts.)
2 on-street credi~
(5 available)
TOTAL REQUIRED: 20.5
TOTAL PROVIDED: 21
_.~~
7)..
3
Land Use and Zoning-
In the general vicinity of the subject property there are a mix of single-
family, multi-family and employment uses. Most of the lots in the area have
developed to their maximum capacity. There are also a variety of Zone Districts,
such as R-I-7.5, R-I-5, and R-2 R-3 and E-1. Land uses and Zoning
Districts immediately adjacent to the subject property are as follows:
North - Single-Family Residential; Zoned R-I-5
South - Siskiyou Boulevard Multi-Family Residential; Zoned R-2 and R-3
:'J
~~-
East - Multi-Family Senior Residential Complex; Zoned E-l
West- Multi Residential Townhouses (Blackberry); Zoned R-3
The subject property is zoned R-3 (Chapter 18.28) (see Exhibits; AerialNicinity map).
The R - 3 district is intended for residential uses at a high density (20 units per acre). The
allowable density for the subject property would be 35 dwelling units (1.77 acres x 20 =
35.4 D.U.).
73
4
Access -
Vehicle access to the property is from Siskiyou Boulevard (a state highway).
Siskiyou Boulevard is classified as a major arteriallboulevard with average daily
trips (ADT's) between 8,000 and 30,000. There is a public bus line on Siskiyou
Boulevard. Siskiyou Boulevard is also designated as a transit trunk line within
the Rogue Valley. Bicycle paths are also located on Siskiyou Boulevard.
There is presently no sidewalk in front of the subject property.
Physical Constraints -
::;.;
The property consists of a 1.77 -acre single parcel with an existing older
single-family house, two cottage units, a large bam and a storage shed. Hamilton Creek
(sometimes identified as Clay Creek) runs through the site and a small pond sits at the
southern end of the property. There is a gentle slope (7.5%) from the north to south and
from the west towards the creek (See Exhibits; Topographic Survey and Aerial
Photograph).
On the east side of the property the area levels off: resulting in a short slope from the
edge of the buildable area to the floodplain terrace. The property is bounded on the w~st
by a row style 2-Y2 story townhouse project (Blackberry Townhouses) and to the east by a
three story sixty two-unit affordable Senior Apartment complex (Ashley Senior
Apartments). To the north is single-family housing and across Siskiyou Blvd. to the
South is an apartment building. The dominant features of the site are abundance of
mature trees and the creek, pond and expansive floodplain.
A nwnber of missteps have occurred in relation to management of this land,
as well as impact associated with surrounding developments. The development
of the surrounding area and some natural causes have negatively impacted the
project's portion of the Hamilton Creek riparian area, a designated Riparian
Preservation Creek.
Construction of Ashley Senior Apartments in the mid 1980's removed all existing trees
and altered topography along the eastern portion of that site. The Senior Apartments also
constructed their property on a 7Y2-foot strip ofland belonging to the AppliCant. The
applicant has the legal right to retake this land, but in doing so would jeopardize the
access and parking of the Senior Apartments.
The development of the Blackberry Townhouses in the last several years included
indiscriminate grading and soil dwnping onto the project site, resulting in loss and
extensive damage of trees and growth of non-native perennial grasses,.forbes and
blackberry brambles. In. additio~ more natural events such as the damage from the 1997
floods caused deterioration of the landscape and vegetation.
7tJ
5
A significant portion of the site itself, roughly 50%, lies with a Floodplain Boundary.
This presents an extremely difficult development challenge. The site is itself visually
beautiful, although needing remedial attention to restore the area to a healthy state. But it
is the long rectangular shape, coupled with the floodplain and an abundance of large,
mature trees scattered throughout the property that presents the biggest development
challenge.
Poor tree pruning practices, including flat cuts and topping has resulted in
numerous tree failures, cavitation, and disease. Flow to the existing pond has been
compromised, resulting in murky water and algae growth. A variety of material,
including many years of grass and tree trimmings, trash and assorted debris has been
dumped onto the property.
Utilities -
Off site utilities (water, sanitary sewer, storm water sewer, electrica1lCTVffelephone and
Gas) are located in Siskiyou Boulevard and Jacquelyn Street, see Utility Layout. The
existing house and cottages are served by utilities on site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request -
The intention of the applicant is to create a community enclave of smaller
(855 and 985 S.F.) cottage-styled homes, within abundant natural open space,
and focusing inward, segregating the automobile to the periphery of the enclave.
The Applicant intends to build thirteen (13) single-family cottage homes, developed as a
Condominium with an Association formed to provide appropriate maintenance for the
extensive natural open space and common areas.
.'
The cottage concept is part of an effort to provide quality, aesthetically pleasing inner
and outer environments that speak to a simpler time where our needs for shelter were
more in balance with our environment and lifestyle. Many householders do not want or
need the typical "suburban" tract house or urban townhouse styled homes. This
movement speaks to a value to move away from our "consumption" mentality that has
permeated our culture. Simply put, the current demographic in this town as is the rest of
the country is that house size is increasing, costs are rising and the overall quality of life
is being compromised. There exists a strong market for homes built in a style that is
highly functional, with private spaces and larger community areas. And one significant
way to build less expensive housing is to build a quality home that is smaller in size and
in balance in its community. There are numerous demographics that recognize the
viability and need for smaller homes.
75
6
,...- - -.
· Cottage designs trade raw square footage for efficient use of space.
You gain architectural details, chann, and comfort
· Low maintenance of efficient Cottage floor plans translate into a
simpler, more enjoyable lifestyle
· The enetgy conscious Cottage provides you with a lower cost of
ownership
The cottage concept of smaller individual non-traditional housing units is
supported by "Ashland Housing Needs Analysis" (Draft March, 2002):
{;
"In short, Ashland's housing market is dominated by baby boomers,
students, and retirees. A larger share of these people form non-family
households, which included people living alone, unmarried couples and
unrelated people sharing housing, all with no childrel1. These
non-traditional households reduce Ashland's average household size.
These conditions imply stronger demand for smaller non-traditional
housing units in Ashland." (Emphasis added).
. ~~1
'.~
&
Access -
Paved vehicle access to the development will be from Siskiyou Boulevard. A shared 20-
foot wide private driveway (with Ashley Senior Apartments) from Siskiyou Boulevard
will connect all the units. The applicant will provide a six- foot wide sidewalk along the
frontage of the subject property. A meandering five-foot wide public walkway will
connect the sidewalk to the thirteen units, and parking areas and Jaquelyn Street.
As mentioned in the Site Descriptio~ existing bike paths and public bus
lines are located on Siskiyou Boulevard.
Parking -
:,=:.",;
The applicant's Site Plan shows more than one covered and enclosed parking
space per unit (15 total) onsite, arranged along the western property boundaIy with
storage and offsite parking for an additiona15 cars. Three (3) parking spaces will be
designated within the Ashley Senior Apartments parking lot reserved in perpetuity in a
formal recorded Easement (Exhibits; Ashley Parking Lot).
~
Background: The adjacent low-income senior apartment complex was constructed
using a seven (7 1/2 ') and a half foot strip of land running the entire length of the
property belonging to the applicant. There exists a Settlement Agreement
(attached in this application), giving the applicant the right to reclaim this property from
the Senior Apartments with fourteen (14) days notice. All parties agree that this
reclaiming would cause great hardship to the senior apartment project, as would remove
the entire side yard setback area and approximately one and one half (1 Y2') feet of the
width of the existing entry drive and possibly result in the removal of significant parking
within the parking lot. And as there exist provisions within the AMC Section 18.92.060
providing for the joint use of facilities in certain circumstances, the two parties have
7,
7
agreed the best solution is for both projects to utilize the existing twenty (20') foot
driveway and for the Creekside Cottage to share three (3) excess spaces in the existing
parking lot.
,:4.A
'W
~
~
The Ashley Senior Apartments has entered into an Agreement with the applicant
regarding the joint use of the driveway and use of parking within their parking lot, see
attached Letter of Agreement. The Owner of the apartments has submitted a request for
approval to jointly use a "Shared Access and Reciprocal Parking Agreement", and will
submit for formal approval of the project lender, the U.S. Department of Agriculture-
Rural Development Department upon project approval by the City. A copy of the letter
of support from the Ashley Senior Apartments for the project and the shared driveway
and Parking are attached in this Application.
Therefore, the main access to the Project will be via the existing twe~ty (20') foot wide
driveway currently serving the adjacent Ashley Apartment complex to the east. The sixty
unit senior apartment operates at full occupancy and has a total of 62 residents with about
35 residents with cars. The Property Manager, who has been Manager at the property
since 1986, states that this number is consistent with past years as well. A Parking Survey
has been prepared documenting usage of the parking lot. Presently, the parking area can
accommodate 65 parking spaces, see Parking Layout Plan. No parking credits have been
calculated for on street parking for the Ashley Senior Apartments.
The subject property also has 268' of frontage on Siskiyou Boulevard, and can provide
five parking spaces, however, the applicant requests credit for two (2) of those spaces or
2 parking credits, for a total of21 parking spaces (1.6 spaces per unit), see Site Plan.
Parking Breakdown:
Onsite
Off site-Ashley Apts.
Off site-Siskiyou Blvd
Total Spaces
Onsite Spaces
16
Offsite Spaces
16
+
3
2
5
21
The applicant has met with the Ashland Fire Department and has complied with the
request for fire apparatus access relative to the proposed .parking plan by expanding a turn
around radius that meets the sizing turn around requirements. There may be some minor
modification required to the Ashley Parking lot i.e.; fire lane designation and signage,
compact space lettering and the applicant has agreed to make those revisions to meet the
requirements of the Ashland Fire Department.
The applicant has worked with local fire authorities to facilitate the ability to travel
within the senior parldn.g lot. Please note that the current condition of the existing
parking at the senior apartment complex d~s not allow for the legal entry of fire fighting
vehicles. With the proposed reconfiguration, fire engines will have the required
17
.8
turnaround spaces required by law. It is also important to note that the applicant is adding
one standard size parking space to the lot to accomplish the required parking allocation.
Utilities/Services -
On-site utilities (water, electricity, gas, cable TV, internet and sewer) are all locate
and capacities are available at Siskiyou Boulevard and Jaquelyn S1. and will be under
grounded (Exhibit; Utility Layout). Thornton Engineering has been retained to provide
project utilities and the engineered footing, retaining walls and piers. A ten-foot wide
PUE will be dedicated to the city along the frontage of the property.
;;
The applicant is committed to providing a highly efficient and resource conserving user
community. Each unit will feature a tankless water heater supplying whole house hot
water, without need for a holding tank to waste energy. Computer controlled electronic
ignition allows the water heater to operate without a pilot light and save up to 5()o/C) off
utility costs. The project will also utilized high efficiency HV AC equipment and use
high efficiency (V-value<. 35) windows.
~~..:,)
.;-':,..-
To reduce road trips during construction, the applicant makes every effort to buy
construction materials locally. Additionally to minimize landfill impact as well as road
usage, the applicant intends to recycle all possible materials from the site. Specifically,
the barn will be salvaged and all materials especially siding materials from the barn will
be re-milled and used in cottage construction. A recycling center will be established at
the construction site for all recyclable materials. The site plan shows includes a recycling
area incorporated into the trash area for use.
Police protection is provided by the City of Ashland within the City limits. Fire
protection is also available to Ashland citizens. To accommodate the maximum
driveway length, the applicant is providing a fire apparatus access turnaround area with
250 feet from the farthest location of the driveway. This turnaround is located within the
Ashley Apartments parking lot. In addition to the existing fire hydrants located across
Siskiyou Boulevard and at the South end of Jaquelyn Street, the applicant will be adding
a new hydrant along the eastern boundary to further serve the emergency fire needs of the
Cottages.
Landscape/OpenspaceIRecreation -
The applicant is providing 77% of the site in landscape open space. This landscaping
will be used to accent building screening, open space and create the recreation area. A
minimum of 70% of the site will be dedicated for recreation (both passive and active).
The applicant is providing private outdoor recreation space for each writ. These
recreation areas are in the porches and back yards.
71 fr
9
..,1
~~~)
"-"
Creekside Floodplain
Floodplain: A significant portion of the site, roughly fifty percent (50%), lies within the
Floodplain Boundary and will contain no buildings, paved or improved pathways, or any
improvements. The floodplain will be restored to a healthy and viable condition per
recommendation from the Conservation Division, the landscape architect, and arborist.
An existing bridge over the. Creek will remain.
The applicant has consulted with two separate specialists in relation to the floodplain.
Ferrero Geologic, a local geologist familiar with local flood patterns, to determine the
100-year storm design floodplain. This analysis primarily focused upon the raw water
flows (hydrology) that could occur on the site. A total offour separate floodplain
boundaries were explored and historical research dating back the last hundred (100)
years. The Geologist focused upon two existing floodplain boundaries - FEMA and
Rogue Council of Governments 1989 Floodplain Corridor Lands map (RCOG). The
floodplain boundary that will be used and what is indicated on the applicant's plans is the
RCOG 1989 Corridor Plan the floodplain boundary.
Thornton Engineering, a registered Civil Engineer, who specifically analyzed the
floodplain boundary accepted and utilized by the City for Planning iSSlleSy the RCOG
Corridor map, has performed additional analysis of the floodplain corridor.
f
Based upon the RCOG boundaty which is cross referenced with corresponding elevations
as reference points, the proposed Cottages are sited outside the floodplain as per the
provisions for development in the Floodplain Corridor requirements. Units 8 & 9
cantilever over and above the estimated floodplain boundary, built upon engineered piers
elevating the units above projected flood levels as per the development requirement.
78
10
In no case will any unit will be built in areas more than two (2) feet below the estimated
flood height level. The piers supporting the cottage structure will be engineered and
constructed to withstand possible damage from flooding and lateral loads.
The applicant is presently cleaning up the riparian floodplain terra~, removing downed
dead trees, removing trash and detrimental debris while preserving habitat trees, cutting
back blackberry vines as well as clearing impacts to the pond and creek
Trees: There are approximately sixty-two (62) trees of over six-inch diameter on the site.
The majority of the trees on the site are riparian species, Alder, Poplar (Cottonwood) and
Willow, with a mix of other native species including Cedar, Fir and Oak. Several fruit ,
and nut trees, of mixed conditio~ can also be found on the site.
~
:'
~.;/
Poor tree pruning practices, including flat cuts and topping has resulted in numerous tree
failures, cavitatio~ and disease. The applicant retained local arOOrist Phil Frazee, of
Arborwest to determine the viability of site trees. During a site review, Mr. Frazee noted
that a majority of the largest trees onsite, both Cottonwood and Oak, had been poorly
pnmed, and were structurally unsound. His evidence pointed to longstanding improper
pruning and management practices. His report of tree recommendation is attached as an
Exhibit at the end of this package.
The ArOOrist recommended the most appropriate candidates for retention are two large
conifers, a Cedar with a dbh of28" and a 14" Fir, (See Tree Report) between units #5 and
#6. It is recommended that the Cottonwood trees located near proposed structures, be
removed and the root systems treated to prevent aggressive re-sprouting. Additionally,
Arborwest recommended that all the dead trees other than appropriate habitat trees
existing on the site be removed. It should be noted that the overall cottage footprint is less
than 700 square feet and the units will be constructed on piers, thereby reducing damage
to exiting tree root systems from foundations and over excavation.
The applicant appeared before the tree commission in June and detailed the plan and is
currently removing some dead trees and a tree deemed hazardous and unsafe. The
applicant is including the Arborist's report in this document.
Architecture -
As mentioned in the request sectio~ above, the applicant desires to create a community
enclave of smaller individual cottage styled homes. Further, the applicant wishes to
design a living environment that interacts with the open space, creating a "romantic"
theme.
Cottage exteriors will be in the Craftsman style (Exhibits; Elevations and Floor plans)
and most cottages will include a fenced yar~ either front or back with a low picket fence,
and all units will have a large covered porch. The areas in and around cottages will be
landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover, and irrigated with an automatic system.
79
11
Cottages, at less than 1000 square feet, demand less paring than typical homes found in
standard subdivisions.
Cottage exterior fInishes feature wood cedar siding (either pain or stain grade), with a
distinctly craftsmen cottage character. The re-milled barn wood will be incorporated into
exterior and interior siding, trim and decking.
Each cottage will have heating and cooling, and will feature on demand tanldess water
heating units. The cottages are designed for a high level of energy efficiency and will
make extensive use of recycled and local materials.
,-~
>.;.
The unit interior feature lofts and vaulted ceilings in all units and will make extensive use
of wood and other classically styled cottage treatments, including the use of built-ins for
storage and shelving. Each home has a full self-contained laundIy an~ one of the plans
features a rear porch area to take advantage of the abundant natural open areas, including
the pond and creek area.
FINDINGS:
SITE REVIEW (chapter 18.72):
The Planning Staff/Planning Commission can approve a Site Review when the
following criteria have been addressed;
A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
Multi-Residential Zone District -
Chapter 18.28 High Density Multi-Family Residential District, allows for either
attached or detached residential units at 20 units per acre. The maximum density
allowed for the lot area would be 35 (1.77 acres x 20 units per acre = 35.4).
The applicant is requesting 13 units, due to the difficult site constraints. This represents a
density of 7.3 D. U. However it is important to note that if calculated, the actual density of
usable land would calculate at more than 14.4 D.D. Given the narrow rectangular shape,
large floodplain and abundance of trees the usable area is small, thereby belying the true
density opportunity.
The applicant is requesting a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback requirement.
The applicant is proposing 7- foot setback and Chapter 18.28.040 D requires
10 feet per story. The request is discussed, in detail, in the variance findings, below.
The proposed cottages will not exceed the maximum height limit of 35 feet since they are
only 19 feet high. Due to the unique quality of the project, the applicant will also request
a Variance for the distance between principal buildings, see Variance Findings below.
go
12
.............".--
The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-3 zone district is 75%. The applicant is
proposing lot coverage of22.4%. Also, the applicant is providing approximately 75%
of the lot area for outdoor recreation space. This far exceeds the minimum requirement
of8%. The outdoor/recreation space is both private (porches and individual gardens) and
common (within the 70% of the pond/creek area).
The form of ownership will be Condominium with an Association. Reciprocal easements
for parking open space access, maintenance etc. will be included in the CC&R's of the
project. The applicant has also utilized the Performance Standards Option to develop a
unique design concept.
<<,"A
~...,,~
The design concept (cottage housing) is an effort to streamline the "consumption"
mentality that has permeated our culture - to build a quality home that is smaller in size
and therefore, less expensive with a high level of livability and effici~ncy.
"$
~
Solar -
'\
Chapter 18.70 (Solar Access) regulates the amount of shading a building can project on
adjacent properties to the North. The applicant has located two cottages (11 and 12)
seven feet from the North property line. The highest shade producing point (roof peak,
parallel to the property line) is 23 feet away from the North property line. This peak is
approximately 19 feet high (H) from existing grade. The average slope (S), in this area is
a negative 7%. The solar set back (SSB) is 34.6 feet. Since the SSB exceeds the 23-foot
shade-producing setback, a solar waiver will be required from the neighbor to the North.
Solar Calculations:
SSB = H - 6
0.445 + S
19 - 6 = 34.6 feet
.445 + (-.07)
The neighbor to the North has verbally agreed to provide a Solar Waiver in exchange for
financial compensation and the applicant is awaiting word from the neighbor to conclude
this process.
Fire Access -
The Site Plan has been modified on the Ashley Apartments to accommodate the
City of Ashland Fire Department's "turn-around" requirement for fire apparatus access.
As mentioned earlier, the existing Fire access is 20 feet and the applicant has utilized a
field survey to confirm this calculation. The applicant has agreed to comply with the fire
lane access and turnaround requirements to the satisfaction of the Ashland Fire
Department.
ParkingIDriveway Access -
The "Letter of Agreement (dated April 15, 2002)" from CBM Group, owners
~J
13
of the Ashley Senior Apartments allows driveway access to the subject property as well
as exclusive use of 3 unused parking spaces. The parking requirement for the proposed
project is 21 spaces and the applicant is providing 16 on-site spaces (15 are covered),
2 on-street parking credits (5 spaces available), and the 3 spaces from the Ashley
Apartments. With the minor revisions made to the Ashley Senior Apartment Parking Lot
there will be a total of65 available parking spaces. The City staff (staff report July 9,
2002) has stated that 62 spaces are required for the Ashley Apartments; therefore, there is
a surplus of 3 parking spaces for the proposed development. The applicant has provided
background information regarding the parking and driveway easement, see below.
~~..
The site plan provides for more than one covered and enclosed parking space per unit
Onsite (15 total), arranged along the western property boundary with storage and offsite
parking for an additional 6 cars. Three (3) parking spaces will be in designated within
the Senior Apartments parking lot reserved in perpetuity in a formal {CCOrded Easement.
Background: The adjacent low-income senior apartment complex was constructed
using a seven (7 1/2 ') and a half foot strip of land running the entire length of the
property belonging to the applicant. There exists a Settlement Agreement (attached in
this application), giving the applicant the right to reclaim this property from the Senior
Apartments with fourteen (14) days notice. All parties agree that this reclaiming would
cause great hardship to the senior apartment project, as would remove the entire side yard
setback area and approximately one and one half (1 ~') feet of the width of the existing
entry drive and possibly result in the removal of significant parking within the parking
lot. And as there exist provisions within the AMC Section 18.92.060 providing for the
joint use of facilities in certain circumstances, the two parties have agreed the best
solution is for both projects to utilize the existing twenty (20') foot driveway and for the
Creekside Cottage to share three (3) excess spaces in the existing parking lot.
The Ashley Senior Apartments has entered into an Agreement with the applicant
regarding the joint use of the driveway and use of parking within their parking lot. The
Owner of the Apartments has submitted a request for approval to jointly use a "Shared
Access and Reciprocal Parking Agreement", and will submit for formal approval of the
project lender, the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Development Department
upon project approval by the City. A copy of a letter of support from the Ashley Senior
Apartments for the project and the shared driveway and Parking is attached in the
Application.
Therefore, the main access to the Project will be via the existing twenty (20') foot wide
driveway currently serving the adjacent Ashley Apartment complex to the east. The sixty
unit senior apartment operates at full occupancy and has a total of 62 residents with the
35 residents with cars. The Property Manager, who has been Manager at the property
since 1986, states that this number is consistent with past years as well. A Parking
Survey has been prepared documenting usage of the parking lot.
~~
14
Tree Removal-
There are approximately sixty-two (62) trees of over six-inch diameter on
the site. The majority of the trees on the site are riparian species,
Alder, Poplar (Cottonwood) and Willow, with a mix of other native species
including Cedar, Fir and Oak. Several fruit and nut trees, of mixed
condition, can also be found on the site.
.~
As mentioned above in the Narrative section, poor tree pruning practices,
including flat cuts and topping has resulted in numerous tree failures,
cavitation, and disease. The applicant retained local arOOrist Phil Frazee,
of Arborwest to determine the viability of site trees, see attached report.
During a site review, Mr. Frazee noted that a majority of the largest trees
on site, both Cottonwood and Oak, had been poorly pruned, and were
structurally unsound. His evidence pointed to longstanding improper pruning
and management practices.
~
~~
The Arborist recommended the most appropriate candidates for retention were
two large conifers, a Cedar with a dbh of28" and a 14" Fir, located on our
revised site plan, between units #5 and #6. It was recommended that the
Cottonwood trees located near proposed structures, be removed and the root
systems treated to prevent aggressive re-sprouting. Additionally, Mr. Frazee
recommended that all the dead trees other than appropriate habitat trees existing on the
site be removed. The applicant has provided a report from Mr. Frazee in this document.
The applicant appeared before the tree commission in June and detailed the
plan and is currently removing some dead trees and a tree deemed hazardous
and unsafe.
Floodplain -
.' ;_~..l
A significant portion of the site, roughly fifty percent (50%), lies within the Floodplain
Boundary and will contain no buildings, paved or improved pathways, or any
improvements. The floodplain will be restored to a healthy and viable condition per
recommendation from the Conservation Division, ArOOrist, and landscape architect. An
existing bridge over the Creek will remain. The applicant retained Ferrero Geologic, a
local geologist familiar with local flood patterns, to determine with lOO-year storm
design floodplain (report attached). A total offour (4) separate floodplain boundaries
were examined and historical research dating back one hundred (loo) years. The
Geologist focused upon two existing floodplain boundaries - FEMA and Rogue
Council of Governments 1989 Floodplain Corridor Lands map (RCOG). It has been
decided by the applicant to use the RCOG 1989 boundary for the location of the cottages.
City staffhas also agreed to this boundary.
~.
R3
15
~iljM6Inar:E:memoCoA~70802b.dr~
~~~-~-'-',,""'''''.' -,' ..,...,. . .' ..._..cc.._....,.... "..,-,."..". _cy>"""'>'n"'~=<__,., ""-'H""',"'" ' ."^,,.,'~.,_y'''''~'
Alan Pardee, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Land Planning Consultant
Post Office Box 1651
Mount Shasta, CA 96067
Phone 530.938.1858
FAX 530.938.2744
California License #2813
Oregon License #435
Date: July 8, 2002
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Bill Molnar
Project: Creekside Cottages
Planning Action: 2002-052
Dear Bill:
Thank you for the Staff Report. After reviewing the report and discussing the issues
with my Client, Devian Aguirre of Sage Development, we have decided to request that
our submittal be postponed until the August Planning Commission meeting. Further,
we agree to waive our right to Oregon's statute requiring a planning decision within a
120 days of submittal.
At this time we request a meeting with staff to review the outstanding issues and
information we have prepared to answer staff concerns.
Respectfully,
Alan Pardee
c: Devian Aguirre
JUl 0 8 200L
137
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Addendum
July 9, 2002
PLANNING ACTION: 2002-052
APPLICANT: Sage Development LLC
LOCATION: 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family (20 du/acre)
REQUEST: Site Review approval for a 13-unit cottage-style condominium development,
ilncluding a Physical Constraints Permit to allow "development" within the City of Ashland
JFloodplain Corridor. The application includes a Variance to rear yard setback standards,
and an Administrative Variance to City Site Design and Use Standards with respect to
Building Orientation.
I. Relevant Facts and New Information
Changes to the site plan
The revised application reduces the total number of units from 14 to 13. With the
exception of units 10-13, the locations of the units 1 through 9 do not appear to
have changed. Required off-street parking has been reduced from 23 spaces to 21
spaces. The site plan identifies project parking within the boundary of the site (15
spaces), within the adjacent senior apartment parking lot (three. spaces) and through
credits along Siskiyou Boulevard (three-credits).
Revisions to floodplain boundary
The initial staff report noted that rougWy sixty percent of the property lies within
the floodplain. The applicant retained Ferrero Geologic to determine the 100-year
storm design floodplain. The Ferrero floodplain study utilized data taken from peak
gauge height measurements along Bear Creek for each year from 1910, 1920 and
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
1St
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 1 of 8
1940 to 2000. The study notes that the 1997 flood was statistically equivalent to the
other floods of the 20th century. In estimating and mapping the floodplain height
under the previous proposal, Ferrero Geologic doubled the height of the 1997 flood
to provide an additional factor of safety. In staff s opinion, factoring in this
additional level of safety is necessary given that a significant amount of floodwater
was diverted down Siskiyou Boulevard. Future improvements to the culverts
beneath Siskiyou Boulevard, as well as modifications to the AsWander apartments
to reduce the trapping of sediment and debris would increase downstream
floodwater height consistent with the Ferrero Geologic floodplain height.
Since the applicant's request to postpone the review of the application at the June
12,2002 Commission meeting, the Ferrero Geologic floodplain has been redrawn.
The new floodplain is much narrower. While the previous floodplain accounted for
an additional3-foot flood height, resulting in a widening of the physical floodplain,
the new analysis appears to narrow the flood plain and recommends elevating the
floor levels of the proposed structures by an additional three feet.
II. Proiect Impacts and Staff Concerns.
Physical Constraints Review Permit
Staff is confused and concerned by the sudden revision of the Ferrero Geologic
floodplain. The new approach appears to be based upon a recommendation to increase the
floor height of the proposed buildings above the floodplain, rather than keeping the
buildings and all supporting structures outside the floodplain or to areas of shallowest
flooding, as directed by City ordinances.
Staff does not support the approach taken by latest floodplain delineation. The fmding in
the application that the Ferrero Geologic floodplain is "a more restrictive floodplain
boundary" is not correct. The revised floodplain boundary is closer to the creek channel
than AsWand's adopted Floodplain Corridor Boundary.
Given the sudden change in the methodology and location of the Ferrero floodplain line,
Staff does not support approval of the proj ect at this time. Staff recommends that the
original Ferrero Geologic floodplain boundary be used. This boundary incorporates an
additional level of safety that, in our opinion, is necessary. The original approach is based
upon locating structures outside the floodplain, rather than merely elevating building
floor levels above the floodplain through the use of engineered supporting piers.
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
1~9
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 2 of 8
Fire Protection
Prior to the June 12,2002 public hearing, City of Ashland Assistant Chief, David Hard
submitted a memo outlining his concerns with the project. While there appears to be
workable solutions to most of the items described in his memo, adequate fire apparatus
access to the project remains a significant concern. Specifically, the configuration of the
existing parking lot does not meet fire apparatus turnaround requirements for a driveway
greater than 250 feet in length. Consequently, changes to the plan are necessary to
comply with this requirement.
The applicant's civil engineer and Assistant Chief Dave Hard met on-site to discuss
changes to the Ashley Senior Apartments parking lot that would insure adequate fire
apparatus access. The applicant's addendum to the application dated June 26, 2002, notes
that the applicant agrees as a condition of approval to provide design and construction of
all necessary improvements consistent with the requirements of the Ashland Fire
Department. Given concerns surrounding fire apparatus access and probable changes to
the configuration of the existing apartment parking area, Staff recommends that the site
plan be revised at this time, and not be deferred to a later date as a condition of approval.
The record should include an exhibit clearly identifying proposed changes to the parking
area that address the concerns of the Fire Department. This gives City Staff, the
Commission and potentially affected neighbors the opportunity to review and discuss
those changes as part of the public review process. In Staff's opinion, a decision on the
application must be postponed until the site plan is revised consistent with the
recommendations and requirements of the Ashland Fire Department.
Off-Street Parking
The 13-unit condominium proposal requires a total of21 off-street parking spaces. The
application proposes utilizing some parking located within the neighboring apartment
complex. The adjoining 62-unit senior housing development is required to have 62 off-
street parking spaces. Upon a site visit, 64 parking spaces were identified within the rear
parking lot of the senior housing development, two more than required.
The staffreport from June 12,2002 noted that the information in the application does not
demonstrate how the condominium project complies with required parking requirements.
At this time, it is still unclear as to how the project meets City Off-Street Parking
provisions. Specifically, only two parking spaces are available from the adjacent
apartment complex, rather than three as indicated on the site plan. In addition,
construction of five on-street parking spaces along Siskiyou Boulevard yields a two-space
credit, not a three-space credit as described in the revised application.
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
I 'fa
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 3 of 8
In Staff's opinion, the application lacks the evidence necessary for the Commission to
find that the project complies with City off-street parking requirements. Consequently, a
decision on the application must be postponed until the questions surrounding required
parking can be answered.
III. Procedural- Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for approval of a Physical Constraints Review Permit to allow
development within a Floodplain Corridor are described in AMC 18.62 as follows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have- been considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than
reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the
existing development of the surrounding area,. and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance
In addition, for all land use actions that could result in development of the Flood
plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter
15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where
applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside offloodway channels, as
defmed in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material
used for fill.
3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and
other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to
the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and
private street and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other iffiported fill material.
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
IIfI
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 4 of 8
...,....... -...-
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the
above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported
onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill
materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent
necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material
shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor.
S. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of
the Flood plain Corridor as feasible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps
adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings
shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been
identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream
flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the
culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow.
Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve
property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or
bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation is subject to the requirements of
18.62.075.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one
foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the
elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height
is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood proofed to an
elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet
above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defmed in section
18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways
identified on the official maps.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be
raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or
to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever
height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an
elevation often feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet
above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways
identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water
flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be
certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the structure.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain
Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor
area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest
flooding.
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
I~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 5 of 8
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all
residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within
the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more
than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the
Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official
maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek.
Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands
that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section.
18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor
for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height,
and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The
[mished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below:theflood corridor
elevations.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots that contain
Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on alllot(s) that contain(s)
buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling
zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall
apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the
minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance.
I. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions
located within the Flood plain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for
residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not
permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands.
K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by
this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect
debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences
shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation
creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor
Lands and at or below the levels specified in section l8.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-
proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10.
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood
plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the
Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below:
1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor
as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This
exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor
between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street
shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map,
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
1'+3
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 6 of 8
and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within
the corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception.
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord.
2655, 1991)
An administrative variance may be granted with respect to the requirements of the
Site Design Standards (i.e. Building Orientation) adopted under section 18.72.080 if,
on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the
following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design
and Use Chapter; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the
difficulty.
The criteria for approval of a rear yard setback Variance are described in AMC
18.100 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 Sl, 1987).
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
JJ.)- 4-
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 7 of 8
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
It is Staff's opinion that the application cannot be approved as currently submitted. Staff
does not support the approach taken in the application's latest floodplain delineation and
recommends that the original Ferrero Geologic floodplain boundary be used. This
boundary incorporates an additional level of safety that, in our opinion, is necessary. The
original approach is based upon the original philosophy of the ordinance, that is to locate
and construct new structures outside or to the furthest extent of the floodplain boundary,
rather than merely elevating building floor levels above the floodplain through-the use of
engineered supporting piers.
Additionally, the staff report again identifies other outstanding areas where additional
information and plan modifications are needed. The site plan should be revised to reflect
the fire apparatus access of the Ashland Fire Department. This information needs to be
part of the application and included in the record, and should not be deferred through a
condition approval. Further, additional information needs to be provided for the project to
demonstrate compliance with off-street parking and solar access requirements. Finally,
given concerns over tree removal, the fmdings and recommendations from the project
arborist, Phil Frazee, should be included with the application.
In Staff s opinion, the issues described above prevent the proposal from being approved
by the Commission at this time. As stated in the previous staff report, we believe a
decision on the application must be continued to a later date, allowing the applicant
additional time to address the concerns described within the report. Any motion to delay a
decision on this application must be accompanied by the applicant's extension or waiver
of the 120-day rule.
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
lifE
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 8 of 8
............
/:::-~,
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLllARING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on
July 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175
East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either
in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the
land Use Board of Appeals (LUBAI on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance
criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that
criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to
proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission
to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the applic all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteri 'available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for
inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,
if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City
Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and
those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after
the hearing, If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel
free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-
552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on July 8, 2002 in the Council
Chambers (Jury Room) located at 1175 East Main Street at 5:00p.m.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-052 is a request for Site Review approval for a 13-unit, cottage style
condominium development, including a Physical Constraints Review Permit to allow for
"development" within the Floodplain Corridor, for the property located at 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard.
The application includes a Variance to rear yard requirements (10 feet required, 7.0 feet
proposed), as well as Administrative Variance to the City's Site Design and Use Standards with
respect to "Building Orientation". Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family
Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 14 CB; Tax Lot: 3600.
APPLICANT: Alan Pardee
/4
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
June 11, 2002
PLANNING ACTION: 2002-052
APPLICANT: Sage Development LLC
LOCATION: 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family (20 du/acre)
REQUEST: Site Review approval for a 14-unit cottage-style condominium development,
including a Physical Constraints Permit to allow "development" within the City of Ashland
Floodplain Corridor. The application includes a Variance to rear yard setback standards,
and an Administrative Variance to City Site Design and Use Standards with respect to
Building Orientation.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
There are no planning actions of record for this site.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The application involves a 1.77 -acre parcel of land with a southern boundary
adjoining Siskiyou Boulevard. Located on the property are an older single-family
residence, two-cottage units, a large barn and a storage shed. These structures will
be removed as part of the proposal.
Clay Creek runs through the property and a small manmade pond is situated at the
south end of the site. The existing topography slopes gently from south to north,
as well as toward the creek channel and associated floodplain. Approximately
60% of the property lies within the floodplain. In addition, numerous mature trees
are scattered throughout the site
The south boundary of the property adjoins Siskiyou Boulevard, a City arterial
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
/~7
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 1 of 11
'T""C' -" -
---
and State Highway. This section of the Boulevard consists of two paved travel
lanes with an unimproved shoulder. Curb and gutter, urban storm drain facilities
and a public sidewalk system are not located within this section of the Boulevard,.
Electricity, gas, City water and sewer are located in both Siskiyou Boulevard, as
well as in the Jaquelyn Street right-of-way at the north side of the property.
Site Design and Use Review
The proposal involves the removal of all existing structures currently located on
the property and the construction of 14 detached condominium cottage units.
Automobile access to the property is provided through the use of an existing 20-
foot wide paved driveway that serves Ashley Senior Apartments on the adjacent
property. A Letter of Agreement has been included in the application identifying
the intention of both property owners to create a plan that establishes a shared
access drive and reciprocal parking arrangement.
Off-street parking for the cottage condominium units will be provided in three
areas. 14 new parking spaces will be installed along the west side of the driveway,
while the site plan identifies an additional seven spaces upon the adjacent parking
lot (Ashley Senior Apartments). In addition, on-street parking credits are proposed
through the installation of frontage improvements along Siskiyou Boulevard (i.e.
curb & gutter, storm drains, bicycle lane, planting strip and sidewalk.).
The mix of condominiums includes eight I-bedroom units and six 2-bedroom
units. Most of the units will include a fenced yard, either front or back with a low
picket fence, and all units will have a large covered porch. The I-bedroom units
are approximately 855 square feet, while the 2-bedroom units are approximately
985 square feet. The square footage of each unit includes a small loft area of
approximately 150 to 190 square feet. The condominium units are of a craftsman
style and character. Cottage exteriors finishes feature wood cedar siding with a
distinctly craftsman character.
The application notes that there exists approximately 62 trees of over six-inches in
diameter on the property. The majority of the trees are riparian species, Alder,
Poplar (Cottonwood) and Willow, with a mix of other native species including
Cedar, Fir and Oak. Local arborist, Phil Frazee, was retained to determine the
viability of existing trees. While no reports is included from Mr. Frazee, poor
pruning practices have been cited as the major contributor to numerous tree
failures, cavitations, and disease. The site plan identifies approximately 28 trees to
be removed as a result of poor health or proximity to development.
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
/4-1
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 2 of 11
Roughly sixty percent of the property lies within the floodplain. The applicant
retained Ferrero Geologic to determine the 100-year storm design floodplain. The
Ferrero floodplain study utilized data taken from peak gauge height measurements
along Bear Creek for each year from 1910, 1920 and 1940 to 2000. The study
notes that the 1997 flood was statistically equivalent to the other floods ofthe 20th
century. In estimating and mapping the floodplain height, Ferrero Geologic
doubled the height of the 1997 flood to provide an additional factor of safety.
The application includes a request for a Physical Constraints Review Permit to
allow development within the floodplain. Specifically, 10 of the 14 condominium
structures will encroach into the floodplain by varying degrees. These cottages
will be built upon engineered piers elevating the units above projected flood
levels. Staff estimates that the engineered piers will be constructed on land
ranging from 3.0 feet to 5.5 feet below the estimated flood height level.
Rear Yard Setback Variance
A Variance to rear yard setback standards is included with the application. The
request would permit Unit 12 to have a 6' -6" rear yard adjacent to the north
property line, rather than 10 feet per story.
Variance to Site Design Standards - Building Orientation
The application includes a request for a Variance to the City's Site Design and
Use Standards with respect to building orientation. Buildings along public streets
are required to have their primary orientation, the building face with the front
door, toward the street. Condominium units 1 and 3 along Siskiyou Boulevard
are proposed to have the side of each unit facing the Boulevard.
II. Proiect Im{)8ct
Physical Constraints Review Permit
The application proposes to construct the majority of the units (10 of 14) within the
City's Floodplain Corridor, as well as within the Ferrero Geologic (FG) Estimated Design
Floodplain Boundary. The application notes: "Cottages extending into the estimated
floodplain boundary will be built upon engineered piers elevating the units above
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
II#!
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 3 of 11
"?"'"..
projected flood levels. The piers will be engineered and constructed to withstand possible
damage from flooding and lateral loads. "
Approximately 60 percent of the property is within the estimated floodplain boundary.
Ashland Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Land (18.62.070 E.) state:
Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential
structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain
Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in
Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet
or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the
channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek.
This standard notes that the Commission may permit structures to be constructed on land
two feet or less below the base flood elevation. The application, however, proposes that
supporting piers will be installed on land ranging between three (3') to five and one half
(5.5') feet below the base flood elevation. This would be contrary to the above standard
and would necessitate a Variance to the requirement. As a result, it is not possible for the
Commission to approve the location of the supporting piers as shown. The application
would either need to be revised to meet the standard, or the application would need to be
amended to include a request for a Variance.
Site Review Approval
Approximately 60 percent of the 1.77-acre site is within the floodplain. The 14-unit
project is well below the allowable density for the property. Public facilities are located
within Siskiyou Boulevard, as well as within Jaquelyn Street (to the north), and are
available to accommodate service needs of the project. In addition, the project design has
shown creativity in its attempt to utilize the existing driveway that serves the adjoining
senior housing project, as well as preliminarily negotiating a shared parking arrangement.
Fire Protection
City of Ashland Assistant Chief, David Hard has submitted a memo concerning the
project. While there appears to be workable solutions to most of the items outlined in the
memo, adequate fITe apparatus access to the project remains a significant concern. The
configuration of the existing parking lot does not meet fire apparatus turnaround
requirements for a driveway greater than 250 feet in length. Consequently, changes to the
plan are necessary to comply with this requiremen(
A connection between the parking lotand Jaquelyn Street (currently improved to
driveway a standard) may provide an appropriate alternative to fire apparatus turnaround
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
I S'()
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 4 of 11
requirements. This also may provide a means for dispersing a small portion of traffic to
the north, rather than Siskiyou Boulevard being the sole means of ingress and egress for
the two developments.
Rear yard setback Variance
The application requests a Variance to the City's rear yard requirement of 10 feet per
story. The application cites several reasons for needing the Variance, including the
constrained development area created by floodplain boundaries and existing trees, as well
as the fact that a large bam (proposed for removal) currently exists eight feet from the
rear property line.
Staff would concur that the natural features of the property (i.e: floodplain and trees)
present serious design challenges. Additionally, the height and scale of the proposed
cottage adjacent to the rear lot line is far less than the much larger bam structure.
Consequently, Staff believes findings can be made to support the variance to rear yard
requirements.
Design standard exception - Building Orientation (units 1 & 3)
The two units closest Siskiyou Boulevard have front doors oriented to the southeast (unit
3) and northwest (unit 1), away.from the Boulevard. Ashland's Site Design and Use
Standards require that orientation of the front door be toward the City street. As a result,
the application requests an exception to this standard. The application notes several
reasons why the applicant believes an exception to the standard is justified, including
differences in the development pattern along this section of the Boulevard compared to
other locations, the plan's incorporation of a strong and inviting view down through the
"cottage neighborhood" from the Boulevard, the modest size and design articulation of
the units and a 5 to 6 foot elevation difference between street grade and the location of the
units.
The requested exception to the City's "building orientation" standard appears consistent
with the "Cottage Concept" that, in general, attempts to orient units inward toward
landscaped areas and other natural features, and away from parking areas and City streets.
The applicant believes that the city should be flexible in the application of this standard
due to the difference in the development pattern along this section of Siskiyou Boulevard
compared to other sections, resulting from projects that predate the requirement. Staff
disagrees with this line of reasoning. Over the past decade, many buildings have been
constructed along main arterials (i.e. Highway 66 and Siskiyou Boulevard) that orient to
the public street. These projects have created a strong design relationship between
buildings and site improvements, and the adjoining public-street and sidewalk. In small
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
/5"1
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 5 of 11
incremental steps the consistent application of the City's building orientation standard has
resulted in an improved streets cape that creates interest for users of the public street
system, as well as respects public rights-of-way.
Staff believes the applicant has presented an attractive building design that is modest in
size and scale. In Staff's opinion, the design exception is driven by a desire to orient the
units inward toward interior walkways, landscaped areas and natural features of the site,
rather than through some unique or unusual aspect of the site or use. Consequently, Staff
does not support approval of the request for an exception to the City's building
orientation standard, and recommends that the primary orientation of units 1 & 3 be
toward Siskiyou Boulevard.
Off-street parking
The condominium proposal requires a total of 23 off-street parking spaces. The
application proposes utilizing some parking located within the neighboring apartment
complex. The adjoining 62-unit senior housing development is required to have 62 off-
street parking spaces. Upon a site visit, 64 parking spaces were identified within the rear
parking lot of the senior housing development, two more than required.
The application intends to construct 14 new spaces along the west side of the existing
driveway. The application's site plan notes that seven parking spaces in the existing
Ashley Senior Apartments will be obtained through a "Reciprocal Parking Agreement".
However, based upon Staff's calculations and observations only two parking spaces are
available from the adjacent apartment complex, rather than seven as indicated on the site
plan.
The application identifies on-street parking credits along Siskiyou Boulevard based upon
frontage improvements. While the site plan identifies up to lOon-street parking spaces,
resulting in a six-space credit, the severe drop off to the creek channel appears to prevent
installation of a four to five on-street spaces. In summary, the information in the
application does not demonstrate how the condominium project complies with required
parking requirements.
Note: The site plan identifies the 14 parking spaces along the driveway as being
"covered". A design for the covered parking structures, however, has not been included
with the application. It should be noted that the proposed covered parking structures are
required to meet side yard setback requirements.
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
/5~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 6 of 11
Solar Access
It appears that the shadows produced from units 12 & 13 would be in excess of that
permitted by ordinance. The application suggests that because the shading from these two
structures will be less than that produced from the existing barn (27 feet in height), the
project is exempt from the Solar Access requirement identified below.
F. Exempt Structures.
1. Existing Shade Conditions. If an existing structure or topographical feature casts a shadow at
the northern lot line at noon on December 21, that is greater than the shadow allowed by the
requirements of this Section, a structure on that lot may cast a shadow at noon on December 21,
that is not higher or wider at the northern lot line than the shadow cast by the existing structure or
topographical feature. This Section does not apply to shade caused by vegetation.
Staff does not concur. Past interpretations of this section have permitted new buildings
that exceed standard Solar Access requirements as long as the shadow from the new
structure is contained within the existing shadow produced by an existing structure
located on-site (i.e. barn). However, if an existing structure is removed, as is the case with
the barn, the new structure is required to comply with Solar Access requirements.
While Staff does not agree with the applicant's interpretation of this section of ordinance,
we would support a waiver to the solar access requirements based upon existing
conditions. Such a waiver, however, would require the permission from the adjoining
property owner to the north.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for approval of a Physical Constraints Review Permit to allow
development within a Floodplain Corridor are described in AMC 18.62 as follows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the
potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and
adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than
reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the
existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
IS-!
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 7 of 11
~,.,,-'-.
^-
In addition, for all land use actions that could result in development of the Flood
plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter
15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where
applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as
defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material
used for fill.
3. The amount offill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and
other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to
the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and
private street and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the
above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported
onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill
materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent
necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material
shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of
the Flood plain Corridor as feasible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps
adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings
shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been
identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream
flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the
culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow.
Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve
property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or
bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation is subject to the requirements of
18.62.075.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one
foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the
elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height
isgreater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood proofed to an
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
I OJ/
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 8 of 11
elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet
above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways
identified on the official maps.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be
raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or
to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever
height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an
elevation often feet above the creek channel on AsWand, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet
above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways
identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water
flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be
certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the structure.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain
Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor
area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest
flooding.
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all
residential structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within
the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more
than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the
Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official
maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek.
Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands
that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopt~d in section
18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor
for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height,
and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The
finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor
elevations.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots that contain
Flood plain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on alllot(s) that contain(s)
buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling
zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation purposes. This section shall
apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than the
minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance.
I. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions
located within the Flood plain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
IS-~
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 9 of 11
~..>_......._.-
residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not
permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands.
K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by
this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect
debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences
shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation
creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor
Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-
proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10.
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood
plain Corridor shall be located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the
Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined below:
1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor
as part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This
exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor
between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street
shall be constructed in the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map,
and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within
the corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception.
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord.
2655, 1991)
An administrative variance may be granted with respect to the requirements of the
Site Design Standards (i.e. Building Orientation) adopted under section 18.72.080 if,
on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the
following circumstances are found to exist:
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
IS'
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 10 of 11
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design
and Use Chapter; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the
difficulty.
The criteria for approval ofa rear yard setback Variance are described in AMC
18.100 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 SI, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
ilnposed.(Ord.2775,1996)
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
It is Staff's opinion that the application cannot be approved as currently submitted. The
placement of condominium structures (i.e. engineered piers) on land greater than 2 feet
below the base flood elevation is not permitted under section 18.62.070 E. The
application must be amended to comply with the standard or a Variance to the standard
must be granted. It is Staff's opinion that a Variance to this provision would be difficult
to justify, given that there is still development potential on land that does not conflict
with this standard.
The staff report identifies other areas within the application where additional information
and plan modifications are needed. Elements of the proposal still needing review and
modification include, fire apparatus access and turnaround requirements, off-street
parking, solar access and carport/garage setbacks.
The issues described above prevent the proposal from being approved by the Commission
at this time. Staff recommends that the Commission suggest the applicant continue the
public hearing to a later date, allowing for additional time to address the concerns raised
within the staff report.
Planning Action 2002-052
Applicant: Sage Development LLC
/57
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 11 of 11
.,.......- ....-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 4,2002 UPDATED
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner - City of AShlan,d41 1-
David Hard, Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal , / (r
2275 Siskiyou Project
Ashland Fire & Rescue can not support Planning Commission Approval of this project as
presently submitted. Items that need to be addressed are:
1. On schematic utility layout the location of the existing fire hydrant on Siskiyou Blvd is
wrong. The actual location is west of the bridge over the creek. The distance from the
hydrant to the west edge ofthe existing driveway to be shared is 250'. Thus this hydrant will
only serve Unit 3.
2. Existing fire hydrant on Jaquelyn can not be used for this project since fire apparatus access
is not provided between this hydrant and the proposed project.
3. Fire hydrant distance is exceeded between the new fire hydrant and Units 11, 12, & 13.
4. Fire apparatus access to the project is a major concern. The existing parking lot does not
appear meet the required turning radius, so driving through the parking lot is not an option to
meet fire apparatus turnaround requirements. In lieu of this, no approved turnaround for the
350' driveway is proposed.
5. The width between the existing curb on the west side of the driveway to the rear of the
parking spots in the first part ofthe two deep parking in the existing lot is less than 20' as
measured in the field. Again schematic utility layout does not depict this accurately and the
required 20' width between their proposed parking and the existing parking will not be
provided.
6. Fire apparatus access requirements are not met for Units 11, 12, & 13. (Maximum 150' as
measured along all exterior walls to fire apparatus position at end of driveway)
7. 12' Terry tree at Unit 1 will interfere with fire apparatus access. Minimum vertical clearance
is 13'6".
8. Currently at times parking occurs along the driveway into the Ashley Senior Apartments.
Under this proposal, parking can never be allowed and No Parking signs and painting
complying with the Oregon Uniform Fire Code will be required in the throat of the driveway
and at the new fire hydrant(s).
9. I have concerns that sharing of the parking lot will only increase fire apparatus access
difficulty.
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541482-2770
Fax: 541488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
ISB
rA1
10. Engineered ph...,", complying with all fire apparatus acc\.-....., requirements and verifying that
existing driveway will support 44,000 pounds are required.
11. It appears from the file that the shared driveway agreement is a draft document and Federal
Government approval has not been obtained. Without this agreement and approval, fire
apparatus access is non existent for this project.
12. It is understood that this project is considered condominiums and these cottages can never be
sold as single-family homes or individual tax lots as proposed.
13. I highly encourage the installation ofa residential fire sprinkler system in all units.
Installation in Units 11, 12, and 13 can be done in lieu of access to hydrant on Jaquelyn or
installation of further hydrants on this project and may override fire apparatus access issues
for these units if other reasonable access alternatives can not be found. (Reference Oregon
Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.1 Exceptions 1 & 2) Unfortunately these exceptions do not
override the turnaround requirement for a driveway greater than 250' in length.
cc. File
Keith Woodley, Fire Chief
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
WWW.ashland.OLUS
Tel: 541482-2nO
Fax: 541488-5318rTTY: 800-735-2900
IS1
~A'
ASHLAND STREET TREE COMMISSION
SITE REVIEW
Applicant 4{Cuv-- Po...-rcle~ Date (or 4!~
Address S lSf< \ ~ OV- e:, V Commercial Residential t,../
Proposed Action: .2.CO~ -Os;L
Sde.-Revl <OLL) 14 CVvu::t c.ondDS w[ P+E Gms+ro.~h'5>-ts .
Recommendation:
<if PLease st.-bthq-wf'cifen arbcri:ts i'eport ofaU. ~s
-b be. r'/3'Y)cued based ~ -.t-n€ f' I:. .,J. pfo-A.. a..tprou-<cl
bj -K1e P(Q(i\V\l~ CO-Ml'\1lS$fOr- , Sl~ .
-;)f- CerlscdQ1 ml-k~O:hV\J p'p(Q.,('So.kmj+etedri\Je UJ~
larger caL~(~-I-f(()--+rees,
>'#ll1is. CDmW\l~(OY\ od<"ou)(~'<S~e (X)~ 0r;J-ierrn
ho.:~~ of p6pCaJ'5 o.-l~ ~e d-cY\JeuJ~ OPIId Lvvtd-.EX'-
S-ta-vos ~ose +t-e€s VY\~ 6e 1"€.<<l0tJ€G( per- Q..{'-K3CY1"'( S+
reC-OmJm9v\~5
ee~~emative
Follow-up:
(P~0/00
o te I
?F A'iA -{pee ~~ Lt.)t~U\ ~ rl-~~ ~e well
follmu\'~(I.- .:1 ~s
v
pcl--e ~ /'nfs
/6()
MAR-05-2002 TUE 02:17 PM oonT WHITE CITY
FAX NO. 54.17746349
P. 03
Oiegon
March 5, 2002
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Ashland Planning Division
Bill Molnar, Planner
20 E. Main Street
Ashland t OR 97520
FAX: 552-2059
RE: Proposed Creekside Cottages
Dear Bill:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal for a 14-unit single family
dwelling Planned Unit Development. The subject property has an address of 2275
Siskiyou Boulevard and is located on the north side of the boulevard between Clay
Street and Tolman Creek Road.
Access to State Highway 99 must be consistent with the Access Management
Administrative Rule 734-051. The application indicates that the highway access to the
property will be via an existing driveway at the eastern edge of the property, that
currently serves the adjacent Ashley apartment complex. The sharing of this road
approach Is consistent with our recommendation for this property, as stated In our letter
of 5/24/01 .
An access permit will be required for the use of this approach and permits will be
required for any landscaping or other work perfonned in the highway right-of-way.
Please ask the applicant to contact OOOT Permit Specialist Ken Thompson at (541)
774-6342, regardIng the issuance of these permits. If you have further questions
regarding this matter, please contact Dan Dorrell, Traffic Engineer at 774-6354 or me at
774-6399.
Sincerely,
5~ Ko~
Shirley Roberts, Planner
Co: Monte Grove, Area Manager
.:..1 "/
:'
[Ashlandpa421t2.sr}
ioo 11. rltcfopc Rond, " -
W'hirl~ City, OR ~75m
Ph()i~~ (~~ll) 1126.~ 112
F<'IX (:,.n) $30-6408
/6/
_."~..".._.,-
LETTER OF SUPPORT
Dear City of Ashland Planning Commissioners:
I,
living at, 'N 5 :;;;. ~u e:!:r .s1-.
regon, wish to express my support for the Creekside Cottages Project which is
located at 2275 Siskiyou Blvd.
The project will provide a quality lifestyle while preserving open natural area and best
uses all the available resources.
Please approve this project at your next meeting.
~ I~ d-oO.2..
ate
/~~
,.._....,...-"-'-----'-,.,' ----, ",--'
LETTER OF SUPPORT
Dear City of Ashland Planning Commissioners:
1, c:ana.y W()t)dlJt19 living at, 8~4 13/acK&.rry La.n€/
Ashland, Oregon, wish to express my support for the Creekside Co~ages Project which is
located at 2275 Siskiyou Blvd.
The project will provide a quality lifestyle while preserving open natural area and best
uses all the available resources.
Please approve this project at your next meeting.
Sincerely,
~~~0-
8- 13- '2DO~
Date
fAVI r~rfUMCJJLu.y I f1cwz Ov-fno-r tvl8Q~~ ()t'
t VV(JUlc/ gladMf ~~ VV1 -P~ trf th,{,j f~ject.
----rtu. dLv~r VtM BIVUl ~ -V{.hr~OYcWnOvrY
--thlY1A.~Vvt AA1o{ C(Vt, wrfo -m~ ~ lLr.tQ, I bvlv/{)
-m~ r%1 cUM. is <AI.! W-tll a.d th ~8vw-o-r.5 bwtft-rm
-thM ~e.a-7he. CD~ ~c( lMto tfu .p~y
tx-fY~ v./@. I ~vt- fkM f>f'Dj~ct 0IV\<1 Iwpc
tf~ wul ~~ c;t wimrJU.1~ dLta.y; I
WI s11 ~I 1iv/.u~.5 W&-uAo{.put ilW::J ~ch -i-h~M-
(]M4. rail P (Nit, 4J; v r1ll1C~() IIV\ an tc., ( . (\00(
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application. either
in person or by letter. or failure to provide sufficient specificity to Ifford the decision
maker In opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBAI on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance
criterion the objection is based on Ilso precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on thet
criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to
proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to ellow this Commission
to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the applicr~ aU documents and avidence relied upon by the appliclnt
and applicable criter iavailable for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if rb....ested. A copy of the Staff Report will ba IVlilabla for
inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost.
if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City
Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and
those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
criteria. Unless there Is a continuance, if a participant so requestl before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shan remain open for at least seven days Ifter
the hearing. If you have ~ or comments concemlng this request. please feel
free to contact Susan Yates It the Ashland Planning Department, CIty Ha., at 641-
552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on July 8, 200ibl the 'Councll
Chambers (JUly Room) located at 1175 East Main Street at 5:00p.m.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-052 a request for Site Review approval ~ cottage style
, udinga Physical Constraints Review Permit to allow for
-developmenr within the Floodplain Corridor, for the property located at 2275 Siskiyou Boulevard.
The application includes a Variance to rear yard requirements (10 feet required, 7.0 feet
proposed), as well as Administrative Variance to the City's Site Design and Use Standards with
respect to "Building Orientation". Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family
Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 391E 14 CB; Tax Lot 3600.
APPLICANT: Alan Pardee
'...,......."'._~.._.._'-
~
Ashland OR Municipal Code
CHAPTER 18.92
OFF-STREET PARKING
SECTIONs:
18.92.010 Generally.
18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required.
18.92.025 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking.
18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places.
18.92.040 Bicycle Parking.
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking.
18.92.055 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District.
18.92.060 Limitations, Location, Use of Facilities.
18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements.
18.92.080 Construction.
18.92.090 Alterations and Enlargements.
SECTION 18.92.010 Generally.
In all districts, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected, enlarged, or the use is
changed, ofT-street parking shall be provided as set forth in this Chapter.
SECTION 18.92.020 Automobile Parking S aces Require
Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residentiai Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required.
I. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following
for accessory residential units:
a. Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.-I space/unit.
b. I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger--1.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units--2.00 spaces/unit.
Q
Multi-fa~wplli"8r_
~D~4
Studio units or I-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.--I space/unit.
I-bedroom units 500 sa. ft or lare.er--I.SO spaces/unit.
2-bedroom units--\. 7S spaces/unit
3-bedroom or greater units--2.00 spaces/unit.
Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater--One space per unit.
~ -
-
3. Clubs, fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses, dormitories.
Two spaces for each three guest rooms; in donnitories, 100 square feet shall be
equivalent to a guest room.
4. Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room. plus one space for the owner or
manager.
5. Manufactured housing developments. Parking requirements are as established in
Chapter 18.84.
6. Performance Standards Developments. Parking requirements are as established in
Chapter 18.88.
B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required.
I. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses. One space
per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land area; plus one space
per 5,000 square feet for the excess over 10,000 square feet of gross land arefl; and one
per two employees.
I"
Page lof8
,\shland OR l\1ulllcipal Code
~-
SrCTlON 1 S.92.02S 'red it for On-street Automohile Parkin!' _
e arnoll~t of ofT-slreet parking reqlllred shall be reduced by (he following credll provided for
on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces up to four
credits. thereafter aile space credit for e;Jch ul1-~lIcct parking space,
B On-street parking shall follow the established configuration of existing on-street parking, except
that45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval oft he Public Works Director,
taking into account traffic flows and street design, with the parking spaces designed in accord
with the standards on file with the Public Works Department. The following shall constitute an
on-street parking space:
I. Parallel parking, each 24 feet of uninterrupted curb.
2. 45 degree diagonal, each .13 feet of uninterrupted curb.
&J
Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking.
Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any comer
or intersection of an alley or street. nor any other parking configuration that violates any law or
standard of the City or State.
Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the arterial or
collector is greater in width than the minimums established by the Street Standards in Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S 14, 1999)
coun e t at are Wt t
n-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shaU not be used exclusively by that use, but
shall be available for general public use at all times. No signage or actions limiting general
ublic use of on-street spaces shall be permitted.
C.
D.
E
SECTION 18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places.
The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following:
Total in Parking Lot
I to 25
26 to 50
51 to 75
76 to leo
101 to 150
151 to 200
201 to 300
301 to 400
401 to 500
Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.'
Required Disabled Person Parking spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of
Oregon, including minimum widths, adjacent aisles. and permanent markings. Disabled Person Parking space
designs are included at the end of this chapter.
SECTION 18.92.040 Bicycle Parking.
A. A II uses. with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C.. I-D zone.
shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
8, Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage. shall
provide bicycle parking spaces as follows:
Multi-Family Residential: One sheltered space per studio and I-bedroom unit
1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit
2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit
Senior Housing: One sheltered space per 8 units (80% of (he occupants_are 55 or
older)
I?O
Pa~e 3 of 8
Ashland OR Municipal Code
B.
c.
E.
F.
r
ml'J.~l!lu~of9 ~J8 fe~t,'~~s~pt
"i.OSO'and'shallnave a 22 foot
8,
I. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a shared
driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet.
2, Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate
aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner.
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet
in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due
regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and pennanently marked
and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12 feet
Q
~~:
in r divisions of propel1y~ either by
~n, shall minimize the number of driveway
Page 6 of 8 17 I
(
Ashland OR Municipal Code
Intersections with I
. .
~Jl9;,~~~,e.~hall c;fr!veways be closerlhan24Jeeta~rneastJr~d
frp. Jhe bon6fu;'6fthe existin or proposed apron wings of thediivewit
b, Plans for property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family
developments shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been
minimized through the use ofshari:d driveways and shall indicate all necessary
G
C.
Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall'have'll' minimum
vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width.
Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excesS,oftwD andone.-haJffeet in height
shall be placed inthe.\tision clearance area. The visiOR ~.area i&tbti ~~e Jonnedby, ,)
a line connecting points 25 feet from the inteqection of property lines. In the case of an
intersection involving an aUey and a street, the triWle ,is f~rt1led by a Iineconne~tiJ1g points ten.. .r
(10) feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. Wl)en the angle of intersect"ion between the
street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall be 25 feet. No signs, structures or
vegetation or portion thereof shall be erected within ten (10) feet of driveways unless the same
is less than two and one-half feet in height. The vision clearance standards established by this
section are not subject to the Variance section of this title.
Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall
apply in all cases. except single-family dwellings.
D.
E.
I. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, tum-arounds and driveways shall be paved
with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the
office of the City Engineer.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and tum-arounds shall have provisions
made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters
onto sidewalks. public rights-of-way, and abutting private propeny.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed
to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces pennanently and
clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel SlOpS shall be a minimum of four inches in heighl and width and
six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to
withstand nonnal wear. Wheel stops shall be pro~i~e~.\yhere appr()p[iatefor al'~paces
abuttil'l8 property lines. buildings, landscaping, 8IJ$l:liiJ'vehicle shall 'overhang a public
right";o-f:way. .
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen
hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall
be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way
line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required
screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or
hedge and street Iineshall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately
maintained by a pennanent irrigation system. and said wall or hedge shall be
maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be
designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways
are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards. or like
Page 7 of8
17~
,...., '- -
-'
/I'.dL' - ~ /I~.~--~
"""""'-'--d~"~ ~'-"",--~ ',~ ,~.'
The speed limit within the complex is 5 miles per hour. .
Washing cars in the parking lot is prohibited unless Owner/Agent designates an ~r~a.
The Owner/Agent reserves the right to have any vehicle removed from the premises at the expense of the Tenant for
failure to comply with any parking regulation. .
AUTO~OBILE REGISTRATION:'A11 ve.h.icles must have current registration and be in operable condition.
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: Non-operable vehicles will be towed away at.the vehicle owner expense. The owner of any
vehicle tAat leaks oil will be held responsible for it's clean up and required to park the vehicle off site until the leak is
repaired. Batteries and vehicle fluids may not be deposited in the apartment community dumpsters. Minor vehicle
maintenance such as change of a flat tire, a battery, spark plugs and belts are permitted as long as it will be completed
in one (1) day and does not result in trash or other unsightly occurrences. Changing of vehicle fluids (Le. oil, anti-freeze,
~tc.) are not permitted.
The 8wner/Agent re~erves the 'right to have any vehicle removed from the premises at the expense of the vehicle
owner, for failure to comply with all parking regulations. Ea~ Tenant is responsible to inform hislher guests of these
regulations regarding parking.
, ..
WATERFILLED FURNITURE: Tenants owning water beds or other water filled furniture must show proof of insurance
(for each) that specifically covers damage caused by water beds and the apartment community must be the named
insured, Coverage must be for a minimum of $100,000 and renewable for periods of not less than 1 year. Any damage
to premises by the water filled furniture will be repaired at the Tenant expense.
EMERGENCIES: Emergencies' affecting the premises should be promptly reported tp'the, Management or 911. The
Resident Manager is not responsible for civil or criminal disturbances. Emergencies include but are not limited to a fire,
a flood of water into the apartment, etc.
ELECTRIC & GAS SERVICE: Owner controls selection of the utility company to provide electricity service for the
Community and its apartments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if permitted by law, Owner shall have the right at any
time and from time to time during the Lease Term to either contract from the service from a different company or
companies providing electricity service (each different company being herein called an "Electric Service Provider" or
"ESP") or continue to contract for service from the Utility for the Community's common areas and its apartments,
Tenant shall give Owner access. Tenant shall cooperate with Owner, the Utility, and any ESP at all times, as reasonably
necessary, shall allow Owner, Utility, and any ESP reasonable access to the electric lines, feeders, risers, wiring and
any other machinery or equipment within the Apartment.
Owner Not Responsible for Interruption of Service. Owner shall in no way be liable or responsible for any loss, damage,
or expense that Tenant may sustain or incur by reason of any change, failure, interference, disruption or defect in the
supply or character of the electric energy furnished to the Community and the Apartment, or if the quantity or character
of the electric energy or services supplied by the Utility or ESP is no longer available or suitable for Tenant's
requirements, and no such change, failure, interference, disruption, defect, unavailability or unsuitability shall constitute
an actual or constructive eviction, in whole or in part, entitle Tenant to any abatement or diminution or rent, or relieve
Resident from any obligation under the Lease.
/1'f
~
@
5 of 6
......... --
.,fsJ I..) s~ 1L;~r- t...e ItTe,./;-",,..t M 8/1/' ~
(5) If the cause for a termination notice given pursuant to subsection (3)(a), (b), (c) or (e) of this section is based upon the act
of the tenant's pet, the tenant may cure the cause and avoid termination of the tenancy by removing the pet from thi
premises prior to the end of the notice period. The notice shall describe the right of the tenant to cure the cause. If the tenan
returns the pet to the premises at any time after having cured the violation, the landlord, after at least 24 hours' written noticl
specifying the subsequent presence of the offending pet, may terminate the rental agreement and take possession in thE
manner provided in ORS 105.105 to 105.168, The tenant shall not have a right to cure this subsequent violation,
0, Tenant agrees that if the tenant signs a promissory note for monies owed under this contract, that the breach of the terms ane
conditions of that note or non-payment of monies due on that note will constitute a material breach of this lease agreement ane
will be grounds for termination of this lease for material non-compliance.
E, Unless Tenant's tenancy has been terminated as provided herein or as provided under state or local law, it shall continue durinc
any period that Tenant's household and personal possessions remain in the apartment unit, even-after Tenant and all othe~
household members have ceased to occupy the unit, until such time as the personal property and household possessions 01
Tenant and his/her household members have been removed voluntarily or by legal means.
F, If the breach is remedied but the same act or omission that constituted a prior noncompliance of which notice was given pursuant
to this paragraph recurs Within six months after the date specified in that notice as the date for remedying the prior
noncompliance, the landlord may terminate the rental contract upon at least 10 day's written notice specifying the breach and
te of 'nation 0 ntal agreement.
17. DamaQe or Destruction of Premises. If the premises are damaged or destroyed by tire or other casualty to such a degree that the
premises are unsuitable for the purposes leased, and if repairs cannot reasonably be made within (60) sixty days this lease may be
terminated by landlord with approval of Rural Development. Tenant should be aware that the Landlord's insurance does not cover
the belon in s of Tena"t and Tenant is stron I advised to obtain a renter's insurance olic to cover the Tenant' ro ert .
Tenant should also be aware that if the property is damaged, it is not the Landlord's responsibility to move the Tenant to new
premises,
18. Rules and ReQulations. Tenant will receive a copy of the Apartment House Rules before Tenant signs this lease. By si9ning this lease
Tenant agrees to abide by those rules, Landlord may change the Apartment House Rules, but only after giving Tenant :30 day's written
notice and an opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. By Federal Regulations, all rules must be approved. By RDand may
not be changed more than once a year unless there is an emergency.
19. Nondiscrimination. Landlord shall comply with the non-discrimination provisions in Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1 B64, No person
shall be refused Tenancy or otherwise discriminated against because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, marital status,
physical or mental handicap, or any other arbitrary classification. Any discrimination complaints should be directed to the Secretary
of Agriculture or to the Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S.DA
20. Attorney Fees. In any legal action between Landlord and Tenant arising out of this lease and/or Tenant's occupation of the apartment
unit, the Court may require the losing party to pay costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party.
21. Abandonment of Unit and Personal Property. In the event the Tenant is absent from the apartment unit for fourteen (14) consecutive
days and is in default in the payment of rent during said period. the apartment unit shall be deemed abandoned by Tenant. Any and
all property of Tenant which may be left in the apartment or the buildings after the termination of this lease or termination of Tenant's
right of possession for any reason may be handled, removed, or otherwise disposed of by Owner aCcording to State law. Owner shall
in no event be responsible for any property left in the apartment or the buildings by Tenant. Tenant shall pay to Owner upon demand
all expenses incurred in such disposition, including a reasonable charge for storage.
22. Modifications. Landlord may modify the terms and conditions of this lease Agreement with prior RD consent, effective at the end
of the initial term or a successive term of this Lease Agreement, by serving notice of such modification on Tenan( together with a
revised Lease Agreement. Such notice and revised Lease Agreement or addendum shall be delivered to Tenant or an adult member
of Tenant's household following the notice provisions of the notice paragraph. The date upon which such notice shall be deemed to
be received by Tenant shall be the date upon which such first class letter is mailed or the date on which the copyof the notice is
actually delivered to the apartment unit. Tenant or an adult member of Tenant's household must receive such notice at least thirty (30)
days prior to the last date on which the Tenant has the right to terminate the occupancy without executing the revised Lease, Such
notice must advise Tenant that he/she may appeal modifications to the Lease Agreement in accordance with Sub-part L of Part 1944
of RO regulations if such proposed modification will result in a denial, substantial reduction, or termination of benefits being received
by Tenant. The notice requirements set forth in this section shall be applicable to any proposed changes to the house rules and/or
gulations for the project.
9 175'
~
@
:?--,
. \. . .
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 4,2002 UPDATED
B,il,.,I.,.M,O.ln ar..,."s,....e... m,....o..r,."p..lann",. e,r,........-...,City of Ash~lan,d
David Hard,~sist~H:hie~ireMarshal _ .
2".,4:; 'Q'i;.1.,=.>.;;;.t.~tn, 'eet" >.
,~.~~~~,@J
. ssi~nApprov~OfthiS,tJr.()jectas:)'
are'
i',.._".:_;:{;, .
1. On schematic utility layout the location of the existing fire hydrant on Siskiyou Blvd is
wrong. The actual location is west of the bridge over the creek. The distance from the
hydrant to the west edge of the existing driveway to be shared is 250'. Thus this hydrant will
only serve Unit 3.
2. Existing fire hydrant on Jaquelyn can not be used for this project since fire apparatus access
is not provided between this hydrant and the proposed project.
Fire hydrant distance is exceeded between the new fire hydrant and Units 11, 12, & 13.
,:=.,~~~~':ta\1_ '.~f~$;~.." .:~I~i;;;l'b.<;'~J..
/'(i 'uir ' " i Y'sodriVi6.'thrOugltf.
ittafu; . j, ,. ' ~~t~>:1ii~lfeuhf >;';.:';'
JSipropOSea.
6. Fire apparatus access requirements are not met for Units 11, 12, & 13. (Maximum 150' as
measured along all exterior walls to fire apparatus position at end of driveway)
7. 12' Terry tree at Unit 1 will interfere with fire apparatus access, Minimum vertical clearance
is 13'6".
~~~~~')
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2nO
Fax: 541-i88-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
rA'
/7'
~
gineered ph. '~omplying with all fire apParams~~. ...'''requirements and verifying ~a0
existing driveway will support 44,000 pounds are required.
. t appearsfTom the file tbatthe shared driveway agreement is a draft document and Federal~
GovernrrleD,!approvalhas not been 9btained. Without this agreement and approval, fiV
apparatus access is non'cxistent'fottl'usproject.
12. It is understood that this project is considered condominiums and these cottages can never be
sold as single-family homes or individual tax lots as proposed.
./i3\r highly encourage the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system in all units.
VInstallation in Units 11, 12, and 13 can be done in lieu of access to hydrant on Jaquelyn or
installation of further hydrants on this project and mav override fire apparatus access issues
for these units if other reasonable access alternatives can I1Qtbef()1ll1d. (Reference Oregon
(~.m. .".cfl."".~,...,n.".,,:;n....,,' Fire Code Section 9,02.2. 1 ExCep, ,..ti~ns. ! &,' 2).'~~,J:~_~lYJh~~e.,:~;xceptionsdonot
~~L~\i", around reqmrement fora..mveway gremerthan 250'm length.
cc. File
Keith Woodley, Fire Chief
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 SiskIyou Blvd.
Ashland, Olegon 97520
YNtW.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-482-2770
Fax: 541-488-5318
m: 800-735-2900
~.l'
/71
8
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC. ._ARING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on
June 11, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER.
1175 East Main Street. Ashland. Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, eit~er
in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decisIOn
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance
criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to lUBA on that
criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to
proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission
to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the applic.. "~;'documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for
inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,
if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City
Hall, 20 East Main Streat, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing. the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and
those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the appliceble
criteria. Unless there is a continuance. if a pertlclpant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing. the record shall remain open for It least seven deys Ifter
the helring. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel
free to contact Susan Yates It the Ashland P1aMlng Department. City Hall, at 641.
552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900
".. --.
--;.
_--1
i
-,.
-~
=+
-.....
~-
=t,
-?.. ....
~
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on June 6,' 2002 in the Council
Ch Room) located at 1175 East Main Street 5:00p.m.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-052 I a request for Sitl:! Review approval for a 14-unit, cottage style
n omlOlum eve op ,c ding a Physical Constraints Review Permit to allow for
Mdevelopmenr within the Floodplain Corridor.. for the property locatAd at ??7l) ~i~k~nu Boulevard.
The application includes a Variance to rear yard requirements (10 feet required, 6.5 feet
proposed), as well as Administrative Variance to the City's Site Design and Use Standards with
respect to "Building Orientation". Comprehensive Plan DeSignation: High Density Multi-Family
Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 14 CB; Tax Lot 3600. '
APPLICANT: Alan Pardee I
,...... ,., --
..,~-
t......
SITE REVIEW
~
,'."
18.72.050 Criteria for Aooroval. he following criteria shall be used to approve or
deny a site plan:
All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met
proposed d~velopment.
8. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
C" The site design complies with the .guidelines ~dopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chapter. /
That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved acces~
t.Q"and throuQn the development electricity, urban .storm drainage', and
~deQuate transportation can and will be provided to a!",d through the
subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) -;
-
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found i~O~d are as
~ws:hat there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
VJ which do not apply elsewhere.
~
)
3)
That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. lOrd. 2775, 1996)
~~. Admini,'rativ. Varian<< from SJ;' Design and Use Standards.
An ~dmlDlStritlVe v~ance t~ the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the
requ!,"e~en~ of t~e ~Ite DeSign Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 jf, on the basis of the
apphcstlon, mvestlgatlon and evidence submitted, all nft':!r fnllowing Circumstances are found to 'exist:
.-
A.
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance whi
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA
--
~~Droval and Permit ReQuired
I. f!:!teria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued
by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the fOllowing:
1. Throu h the application of dev an ter.
the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
That the applicant has considered, the potential hazards that t e
development may create and implemented measQres to mitigate the
potential hazards caused bV the development.
2.
3.
Co M M S Nt 5' M p\"\{
PR\OR \0 Ju N E-
NG pEpft~ ME. NT
C ~\'1 Hf\L'-;
;AD S 1\';;\ M l\ \ N
",I 0 QR~
As \-\ L- A I'J . )
9 7 5 aD
~
BE.
MA\LE..D
, ,-tL T6
/
PL A N f'.( t
/f~
~..,,^
Planning Action '2002-052
Property Located at 2275 Siskiyou Blvd.
Assessor's Map 3 9 1 E 1 4 C B - Tax Lot 3600
Public Hearing Ashland Planning Commission
June II, 9-zt;;.. l>~
1175 East Main. Ashland. Oregon
18.72.050 Criteria for A'Oproval
D. (ORD. 2655. 1991)
1. Paved access to and through the development
A. Objection: None provided
2. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to
and through the subject property.
A. Objection: None provided
18.100.020
2. (ORD. 2425 Sl, 1987)
That the proposal's benefits will be greater than
any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses.
Section 18:72:090
Administrative Variance from Site Design and
Use Standard s
18.72.080
All of the following circumstances are found
to exist.
B.. Approval of the variance will not substantially'-
negatively impact adjacent properties.
Adjacent Property
Ashley Senior Center Apartments
2)01 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
11/
--
2
Age: 13 years
Size: 62 units
Parking
Spaces: 64 spaces
No loading zone spaces
No on-street (Siskiyou Blvd.) parking allowed
Dri veway off Si skiyou Bl vd .
20' wide. Minimum required by Fire Marshall,
Ashland Emergency Service: 20' with no obstructions.
Now being used as loading zone for:
Mail - Taxis - Moving vans - UPS - RVTD van -
Home Medical - Pl,um'hers - r.0..I';.enters - Gleaners -
Installers - and assorted other vehicles.
Parking Lot is U-shaped with Trash Dumpster and
Recycle Bins at or near rear end of parking lot.
No sidewalk is available so tenant must walk length
of parking lot to dumpster near end of parking lot
on driveway section of parking lot. Driving width
can be less than 20' due to varying sizes of vehicles.
Suggest contact with Ashland Sanitation and discussion
of various nroblems the driver has had driving
through off-Siskiyou, with access sometimes lImited
to one lane and meeting other vehicles going the
other way.
Proposal of Applicant at 2275 Siskiyou
1. Share use of 20' Driveway.
2. Share parking lot.
A.
Want 7 parking spaces belonging to Ashley Senior
Apartments.
14 covered parking spaces on applicant property
backing into driving lane of Ashley parking lot
less than 20'-width with parking spaces occupied.
B.
Drivewav anc'l driving lane less than 20' wide to
covered~parking spaces, and 7 Ashley parking spaces
will be 2-way traffic.
Applicant Statements f "Ashley Senior Parking Lot only 50%
occupied~?nMost seniors don't have cars"?
lip-
c.
"_'__A"'_~< ,~.
J
Personal Response - Ashley Senior Apartment with car.
Siskiyou Blvd. is only 2 lane. Traffic from 1-5 south,
Traffic from Tolman Creek, Ashlander Apartments across street,
Bus stops both sides of Blvd, no crosswalks.
We have had several legally blind residents crossing for
bus service. Caution upon exiting 20' wide driveway on
Siskiyou now as you must stay far on the right to allow
Drivers turning in driveway off Siskiyou space to enter
as traffic flow is fairlY consistent. Closest traffic
signal is at Walker Aven~e. "Seniors without cars don't
need parking spaces"? Most seniors without autos rely
on services that require parking space:
1. Meals on Wheels
2.. RVTD vans
J. Taxis
4. Shopping (small) bus
5.. Nursing aides
6. Health care workers
7. Housekeepers
8. And if we're really lucky, a friend or family
member might visitl
One resident over 100 years old has a son and a
daughter that co~e J times every day.
If all parking spaces are used, they could park at
BiMart and hike up Tolman to here, which would be
the closest parking lot.
9. Per Bill per planning, State of Oregon discourages
more driveways, more cars exiting on Siskiyou.
10. With 62 units and 64 pgrking spaces (2 close to
unusable), Drive 20' emergency requires,
no loading, no obstructions, vehicles now using
that strip no parking emergency fire use only,
we'll have to use existing parking spaces in
parking lot, reducing the 64 down further.
11. Planning Department states shared use driveway,
all parking spaces given to applicant, sharing
of driving lane in parking lot, all these are
perpetual rules.
12. When Flag Lots are considered, a 25-foot road access
is required and only 2-J residences are allowed.
This proposal is considering 62 -- plus 14 units I
for a total of 76 units., using only a 20-foot
driveway. Ashley is a Federally subsidized
low-income Serior and Disabled complex and should
deserve some comparable consideration.
2 ~ n1 Si skivou
Thank you'! 8J
Barbara A. Bro~
#104, Ashland, OR 97J20
. ACCESS & PARKING:
Per the Multifamily Parking Standard, the Project requires:
9 1 bedroom Units @ 1.50 spaces/ Unit =13.5 spaces
~ 2 bedroom Units@ 1.75 spaces / Unit= ~ spaces
13 Units 20.5 Spaces Required
~
The Ashley Senior Apartments has entered into an Agreement with the applicant
regarding the joint use of the driveway and use of parking within their parking lot.
The Owner of the Apartments has submitted a request for approval to jointly use a
"Shared Access and Reciprocal Parking Agreement". and will submit for formal
approval of the project lender, the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural
Development Department upon project approval by the City. A copy of a letter of
support from the Ashley Senior Apartments for the project and the shared driveway
and Parking is attached in this Application.
T""
The subject property also has 268' of frontage on Siski ou Boulevard, theoretically
'J providin 10 arking spaces however t e applicant requests cre It or ree 0
(JAil ~ ~ [) t ~se spaces or par Ing credits, for a total of 21 parking spaces (1.6 spaces per
.,"" ~ unit).
E~~ ~ l&. ~ ::::n:o::kdown Offstte Soaces
~ Onsite 15
AIV Offsite- Ashley Apts. 3
,./.- Offsite- Siskiyou Blvd. 3
Total Spaces
15
6 = 21
. . .f
.1. '"
.
,
, .
. .. . ".'. .
".
...
,
..
..'
'"
. . .
,- .
".' .
. .
.
. .
..
, .'
lIS-
",
, . .
. ,
.'
....
LETI'ER OJ' AGREEMENT
. .",
1.0 Whom It May Concern:
:his is a LcLter or Agreement for the proposed shared Access Drive and Jleciprocll
I'arl.ing Apement between the Ashley Seaior Apa1mCIIIS f' Ashley'") and Qoceklidc
Cotla8CS~' h is ,be inteat ofbotb parties 10 1lIOIk togcthcrto aeaIO · plan
that ~ both propetIie$lDd best \lUbes die M:J:eU and pertiPg eo.- botIa
properties.
-.,
.
. .. .
'l"bcre ccists a strip ofllmd approximatdy IeYeII (7') feet wide that MlSIJO!th to IOUth for
approximaldy four huDcked l\1INIIIly aiDe (429') feel down the entiIe length ot'the
common west propat)t JiM that is the Property oCO~ ('t'J."he Jtaopaty"),
. . . .
The Property is currently used by Ashley as . "I)d~ M'C:II ~f six feet aDd ;bOUt .~" .
fOOl of asphalt into the eatcy drive. CRlebide is i8Imdiaa upOa building cOUap bousiag
..a_to....tho1'l..-..._~~of..."'*'- _ _ _.rL-'
Aa:;reemeDt and MIJIdaIltIlIeuc created ~ AaJaust. 1990 PaoaMtY" can be taka for ~- .
use by ~ with a fihea day notice. 1 1$ fakeD. Ashley will autrer :;t861t1tr; 't
from... ~ately sized drive_ sideIiae ~ '. ~ " ..
. ,. - . ' .
.. "'l,.'
Creek1ide and Ashley lave c;onccptudy ..oed to lI\Iu.t.m the ~~ in its current '
condition _ share ac:cess OIl the A:Mey cIrive and proviclc up to Dine (9) pest patkiog
, spausln its pamna ~ wilen available. ~ formal agreemewa wiD be drafted upoD
. approval bytbe Cily of AsbIaod ofCr-kcidl!! Project and the USDAJtural
~ Dcpanmc:m. Ashlcts~. .
"
-
Signed:
Devi... Aguim:
Sage Development. LLC
"
l'd
9SS9-B8l-- nos
~u..dOle^.o .'VB
dSOfEO ~o 91 ~dy
.. ---.. ..--................'P..........,....
-,-
/t~
,..... ..-
SET'l'LEKEHT AGREEMENT AND HOTUAL RELEASE
As~ TNL:~M~
6~
.:-.E.'t\1-~r
le-~
....
In consideration of the performance of the mutual
covenants contained herein, the undersigned agree as follows:
1. That stipulated judgments of dismissal shall enter in
two pending lawsuits which are known as Jackson County Circuit
Court Cases No. 89-858-E-1 and 90-1008-L-3, respectively. The
remaining issue in the former case concerns allegations of
contempt which shall be specifically diS1D.issed. The resulting
judgments of dismissal in each case shall be with prejudice and
without costs or attorney fees to any party.
2. That the $5,000 surety bond posted by Ashland
Investment Group, II shall, by stipulation of -the undersigned,
be forthwith returned to Ashland Investment Group, II by the
Trial Court Administrator.
- 3 . That the undersigned hereby mutually release one
another from liability for all cb,il claims which are directly'.'
or indirectly connected with the two above-stated lawsuits
being hereby disaissed.
4. That henceforth the previously disputed property
-.. boundary shall be the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the
sout~west Quarter of Section 14 located in Township 39 South at
Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson ,County,
Oregon, as shown on Registered Survey No. 7532. A strip of '
land of approximately 7 feet in width lying Westerly of the
said Quarter section line between such line and an existing. '
chain link fence has previously been in dispute concerning
ownership. This parcel of land can be seen on Registered ' ..
Survey No. 7532, and is hereafter referred toas-nThe Tract".
Ashland Investment Group, II, upon being furnished by "
Fredinburgs a proper legal description of ~ne Tract, ,shalb
quitc1aim by deed said tract to Robert and Ella Fredinburg.
" - 5. That, in addition to prOViding the legaldescription-'
of The ,Tract, Fredinburqs shall. also'provide monuments at' each
end of the true property boundary. ~e;l.ng . herf!J?Y est~l~shed,
with such monUJllents to be pla~ed.by a registered surveyC?r, and,
wi th the monument located nearest Siskiyou Boulevard to be .
placed flush with the surface of any existing asphalt so.as not
to create a hazard to vehicles using the. present drivew4y.until
such time as Fredinburgs elect to relocate o~.replace.that .
curbline on the true property boun~ary so monUmeDted.
c .
~ 0- . 4 ...
6. That the trees and shrubs now located on The Tract..
shall remain in place on an interim basis .and sliall continue to
. -. . ...
--
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
Page -1-
/17
. .
-
this pending
decision to begin moving the fence or the curbline " 11t""1'lL .
e e e ec s 0 ~:_
en e curbline, Fredinburqs shall give 1 ~
Ashland Investment Group, II, fifteen days written notice r -0
actually delivered to the law firm of Ainsworth, Davis,
Gilstrap, Harris, Balocca & Fitch, or its successor prior to
moving the fence or curbline. Such notice shall also designate
any trees or shrubs located in The Tract which will be removed
as a result of moving the fence or the curbline. Upon receipt
of such notice, Ashland Investment Group, :[]: shall have the
right to cap the existing sprinkler system at the true property
boundary, and the option, within the fifteen day period to .
transplant or otherwise remove the trees.and shrubs designated
by Fredinburgs in the said notice. Any tree or shrub so
designated which is not moved within the fifteen day period
shall b abandoned by Ashland Investment Group, II.
7. That Fredinburgs shall solely bear all expenses of
moving the fence, of moving or removing any existing curb or
asphalt located on The Tract, of moving or removing the
existing sprinkler system, of moving or removing any portion of
the existing Talent Irrigation District system, and of moving
or removing any trees or shrubs not transplanted by Ashland
Investment Group, II within the a ve-stated fifteen day notic
period. ·
8. That Fredinburgs sha 1 deed to Talent Irrigati n
District for no monetary consideration a perpetual," non-
exclusive easement across The Tract for purposes of maintaining
the District's irrigation water delivery system. The
consideration for this deed shall be stated to be the
resolution of an existing dispute. Fredinburgs shall furnish
the proper legal description of The Tract for use as part of
such deeded easement, and this description shall be the same as
that to be provided in para ra h 4 above.
.
""',
9. That upon execution and delivery by Fredinburgs of all
doc~ments provided for hereinabove, Ashland Investment Group,
and Billy Hogue sball pay to Fredinburqs the sum of
10,000.0 , and shall furnish to Fredinburgs a reproducible
cop ohe complete construction plans and drawings used for
the 62 unit Ashland project and the approximately 100 unit
Green Valley, Arizona, project.
10. That it is clearly understood and agreed that neither
Ashland Investment Group, II, nor Billy Hoque grant Fredinburgs
any permission to use the said plans for any purpose, but
neither will assert any claim against them for the use thereof.
....
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
Page ~2-
ItB
~ ,.
\ .
....
..
,
11. That all parties hereto shall promptly s~gn all ,
document~ necessary to implement the terms of this agreement.
12. That this agreement shall be binding on the
undersigned as well as their successors or assigns.
13. That any dispute concerning this agreement, its
execution or its implementation shall be referred to Charles
McNair as arbitrator for his binding decision with the party
not prevailing in such decision to pay all attorney fees and
costs incur~ed by the other party or parties as well as the
arbi to's fees and expenses as he'shall determine in his
"so disc tion.
~"'3 -70
DATE
JOEL REEDER, DATE
Attorney for Robert
Fredinburq and Ella Fredinburg
and
"'"
IT IS ~ AGREED:
ASHLAND INVESTMENT GROUP, II,
Partnership
. .
..
FREDIN BURG , DATE
'Y- J Y- fa
DATE ELLA FREDINBURG,
DATE
..
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
paqe -3-
/t"
. .
. ,
."
Since 1977, Bonded & Insured License # 65597
E-mail pete@thearborist.com www.thearborist.com
~, ~I' A~]
~PeteSeda~ " ~i.:
- Urban Forester, General Contractor, & Certified Arborist.
"From Treetop to Roo_t Tip, We Care."
1257 Siskiyou Blvd. # 224. Ashland,OR 97520
The ARBORIS'J'Jnc
(541) 770-6789 or 488-5678 fax 488-8700
To: Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd., APT. 108
Ashland, OR 97520
Ph: 552-0849
Re: Trees on the property line of 2275 Siskiyou Blvd. and 23
Blvd., APT. 108
Dear Heinz,
Cottonwoods along the west side of the retirement home property should be
examined and pruned regularly. If that is done the trees may be an asset and
last for many years to come. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Arborist, Urban Forester
Iff)
.......M_...'...._.>Of ,._....~'''".,... ..,...___.....,
. 1 he AKHUK1~' 1 '~tt}C
I
Since 1977, Bonded & Insured Licer. ;t. 65597
E-mail pete@thearborist.com www.thearborist.com
. - . ".\ UM~
~~teSeda ~~ .... ~.I
- Urban t-un:::ster, General Contractor, & Certified Arborist.
"From Treetop to Root Tip, We Care."
1257 Siskiyou Blvd. # 224. Ashland,OR 97520
(541) n0-6789 or 488-5678 fax 488-8700
To: Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd., APT. 108
Ashland, OR 97520
Ph: 552-0849
June 24, 2002
Re: Trees on the property line of2275 Siskiyou Blvd. and 2301 Siskiyou
Blvd., APT. 108
Dear Heinz,
Cottonwoods along the west side of the retirement home property should be
examined and pruned regularly. If that is done the trees may be an asset and
last for many years to come. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/1/
JUN 2 8 1.001
\
JUN 0 7 200Z
Planning Action-2002-052
Property Located at 2275 Siskiyou Blvd.
Assessor's Map 3 9 1 E 1 4 C B - Tax Lot 3600
Public Hearing
Ashland Planning Commission
June 11, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
Ashland Civic Center
1175 East Main. Ashland, Oregon
18.72.050 Criteria for Aoprova1
D. CORD. 2655. 1991)
1. Paved access to and through the development
A. Objection: None provided
2. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to
and through the subject property.
A. Objection: None provided
18.100.020
2. (ORD. 2425 Sl, 1987)
That the proposal's benefits will be greater than
any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses.
Section 18:72:090
Administrative Variance from Site Design and
Use Standards
18.72.080
All of the following circumstances are found
to exist.
B.. Approval of the var~ance will not substantial~y
negatively impact adjacent properties.
Adjacent Property
Ashley Senior Center Apartments
2301 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
l'f~
2
Age:
1'1 years
~ ,.
Size:
62 units
Parking
Spaces: 64 spaces
No loading zone spaces
No on-street (Siskiyou Blvd.) parking allowed
Dri veway off Siskiyou Blvd.
20' wide. Minimum required by Fire Marshall,
Ashland Emergency Service: 20' with no obstructions.
Now being used as loading zone for:
Mail - Taxis - Movin~ vans - UPS - RVTD van _
Home !r1edical - Pl,umbers - r.~rpen'ters - Cleaners _
Installers - and assorted other vehicles.
Parking Lot is U-shaped with Trash Dumpster and
Recycle Bins at or near rear end of parking lot.
No sidewalk is available so tenant must walk length
of parking lot to dumpster near end of parking lot
on driveway section of parking lot. Driving width
can be less than 20' due to varying sizes of vehicles.
Suggest contact with Ashland Sanitation and discussion
of various problems the driver has had driving
through off Siskiyou, with access sometirr..es limited
to one lane and meeting other vehicles going the
other way.
Proposal of Applicant at 2275 Siskiyou
1. Share use of 20' Driveway.
2. Share parking lot.
A.
Want 7 parking spaces belonging to Ashley Senior
Apartments.
14 covered parking spaces on applicant property
backing into driving lane of Ashley parking lot
less than 20'-width with parking spaces occupied.
Drivewav ano driving lane less than 20' wide to
covered'parking spaces, and 7 Ashley parking spaces
will be 2-way traffic.
B.
c.
Applicant Statements f "Ashley Senior Parking Lot only 50%
occupied~r'Most seniors don't have cars"?
I 'IS
3
Personal Response - Ashley Senior Apartment with car.
Siskiyou Blvd. is only 2 lane. Traffic from 1-5 south,
Traffic from Tolman Creek, Ashlander Apartments across street,
Bus stops both side s of Blvd, no crosswalks.,
We have had several legally blind residents crossing for
bus service. Caution upon exiting 20' wide driveway on
Siskiyou now as you must stay far on the right to allow
Drivers turning in driveway off Siskiyou space to enter
as traffic flow is fairly consistent. Closest traffic
signal is at Walker Avenue. "Seniors without cars don't
need parking spaces"? Most seniors without autos rely
on services that require parking space:
I. Meals on Wheels
2., RVTD vans
3. Taxis
4. Shopping Csma11) bus
5.. Nursing aides
6.. Health care workers
7. Housekeepers
8. And if we're really lucky, a friend or family
member might visitl
One resident over 100 years old has a son and a
daughter that co~e 3 times every day.
If all parking spaces are used, they could park at
BiMart and hike up Tolman to here, which would be
the closest parking lot.
9. Per Bill per planning, State of Oregon discourages
more driveways, more cars exiting on Siskiyou.
10. With 62 units and 64 parking spaces (2 close to
unusable), Drive 20' emergency requires,
no loading, no obstructions, vehicles now using
that strip no parking emergency fire use only,
we'll have to use existing parking spaces in
parking lot, reducing the 64 down further.
II. Planning Department states shared use driveway,
all parking spaces given to applicant, sharing
of driving lane in parking lot, all these are
perpetual rules.
12. When Flag Lots are considered, a 25-foot road access
is required and only 2-3 residences are allowed.
This proposal is considering 62 -- plus 14 units I
for a total of 76 units, using only a 20-foot
driveway. Ashley is a Federally subsidized
low-income Senior and Disabled complex and should
deserve some comparable consideration.
23 Ol Siskiyou
Thank you,
1'1{-
Barbara A. Bro~
#304, Ashland, OR 97520
.--'"=~ ';-"':~'.';;~!~\~=:~r~~r.ll~
.0... 23&1 :;:;'r.s ki)! ()v. .iS1 v:FI8e2- :
frl1. lO/n 6 ( D R. q ('51.B L
,J~ S I 2.C02 JUN 062002'
<>o,.A-s 0. -fena:.n-t 00 ~A:s.r.~ ~()r
".;;;;.;;:.-.1 ~ k,...- a..p <L.. t-~ts f>r ~ p 4J;. t- .
! \ ~ (j< ~"".s) I 0-z:f.s; $u....rpr i&e..J ~
.<'0 oU:s~~ iD~" OCr ~.p~...s:
::....~ :~.:y'.~:'.~:f::,::;-;:LJ ~ --H ~~ O-e _ ('" 0 I . ~.L ~ b:Iv I ~.-j._.,t.... _ ..
:';:?);;~""c"1 - 0 I V ""- ~ - r", y\ v-' '\..U , I r VC::-...
,,,;,~,,,),;,ji~ ~ 0 l V\ " 'A~ ~YYv /'X r y. \ LvvL. s ~
. I >~ I h ~)..~ tv &.{~ Se<>en ~e . j
I ~ +he. iZY.. [<;',+1 vo olr\ lie. ~ -to ~ I
I fro ~ ~ ~ <:0. . \ l \ \ft., '-ChiS LA.Jthu.& f
i ~ ~ dJr,l..!-e .( "OTv o..~d nCl.fT"W f
.::h I P 10f1\..{' ck.. ~lJl rW t- o..C'C 0 m~ i
().. r vE' tn,L ck..o r a....w....b ~) rn-.ucJ..... 1
. ..u 5 <;; +-WO - w:or -t-r-", ~ c.... -;-(rtt.$h ~ t \.ecti 0>\1
-tv ~ ()V4' s:.wt.n 1J&. 'the. tVLl'E;f1<< :
r 0-.4-- {Z\ VI.. ~ '5 pa.ces .
\he. ~~ ~OT ~~LSA (Q 2 - l,ji;~);1fl~X~{"t~~
. CLftt,-d:' rnen-f.. ~~.~c.t. "'-f~.
-- .
....-. ..~-
'j)ea-r- :;; Irs
1t:/5
l.
/,
,
L
1
fl ,.C.. -'.:;:-':~-';, :..'. -:: .'. "\':.:;:. :j,-:'-':
~;:~:;}~~~~~?~~::
..... ..,<.......~."'..., ...~-..--,;-~.'~"....-... . .... ~ - - .
. .....-...--... --.,.-... -...........""-1'.:..-....._
/. ,;: '-~:: ,- :.,:~.~.... ~."... ~-,..; '~-'.;.-:..': :--;;-~ -.
.. '.. , . .. - ~
'. '-.' - -..- ".'
.,::~:~~~K,~~t;~l~~~~tJrt-
. -- -. - ',',.
. .""',- - . .- ~... '." ., ..~'- -' -'~ ~ .. .
. - .. ~. '.. ~.
. ............. Ib ~r-:05eJ ? be <^llo-fl-r.J itsOUYl
./~;~~)":;o~ Z;fdvO' - Cfk LUfuJ ct.D r\Dr ()U)Y\ CMJ s+i II
i w& -the. f, p/W.. - i'lo<l- ~ ~ V)'s.ib r~ bwf-
.' . I ~\~ C<)Jre (;\ft,I~vs). .
:f~~;t4~~ l clo (\/e~ ~ 'ik i?ll.t>w j ~ ~\ff-'ri po",
. ......... \ A/II'e f. - h~ /1 ~ ~ o.-s;. ~ I~
"P}R'":;~1/1~l~~ +0 o:'r bUI \OJ ~(j ~~' (j !'"i;:;'~:~;~~&~![!o;S
, ~il\-.b ~/~ ~~ !.. ...
.., ~.p~ p~. J
- ({ I'i> ol:l" 0 SO C b) C C;tt'tu-t' 0 fVy Atf~YA(J ~
; ~,~ ~~ ~'~ il,fr-",p~~C6~l
i +hro~~ rMJ. -{Q +W. J..eve~~ ", ~ f.
O--k~ -h--C0'l~porto-k1lh1 ~ CLM.J w:.'IJ :
ke- p'\<JviM _~ ~JL *~l.1_iVle Subtfct
H____ . ~ \>YO ~~\
..;_.::--:~r. ___
- . ,...
-.- -",--
- . -. ~ -~ -_......'-_.~-
. ~- - . .-. ~
li>. IO~~OW L vu'terl'6 frr varr'%~~
(],)((~ ~ ~p05a1:S ~1ts 0) /I
be. %reo.te,r- ~ _CMuf ~-hv.e (h'\-pa-~.f:5_
~ +W2 ~~~4 db ~ ~~
~s; __ . .
---
/'16
.. '
.~_. .-.- .-...,....-...
-
.-......... .-.-
f:~~;~~~~~~~
( ','
- L\.:.
.
!
:':'; ;:-}~;Y;;:;:'2::j
. 0' i
.. .. ,.". ~ - . . . -. ,"
. -. .-' . . ~ . .".- _. .,
";~'~;,~~~~:~~:;:X:]
'. -. - . _..~ --,
,". ,"_.' -"" ~.."; -. - -
.~.~-;: .-.;:'-:'.":.; .".;' : _:. .:.. - ~ .J
;
_'u !
\ 'b .IJ.. 6q 6 [aMniI>, VM. fom Siie Jt!;'ity,]
B · l( elf p ro vaJ (/1- iN. V'cvr ; ~ /)j III yw-t
~<S~ ~ft-dcvn iI'e~ " m-pM-t-
~~profer-ne~ Il
1 ~. W '2- .0 l./ 0 C P lw ~i u ( rJMJ.. eJt Vi't1J /1 tr01I,ht ( .
C<J1tt-5h--a I nts I"]
I, I. ,,:' pt> fet,..0 (l..{ I rYLfl,ciCh ~ i .
pro rvrt:i ~ r\ZfJ(A ~ cv~~ h~ I
~ C<J h <;.; ~ eJ lM1d '~Vf.A 5.e- i mpac(S. i
ho..-Je- ~ (Y\~Y\; tntyJ,
L2. \I, Pb~i10{ ~lL~~ 111~-
~+- m rAy creCA- k: \' , I' h'\.F~~
~~iM.es +0 fYtt\ h'~ ~t,
E:TJ.JL/v,..k 'I f51L tv r (fever -6 1'Yl-e-,
~\ 1'\C&r~)
2i~a.
-
- ., . - . -- .. - ~.. - - ,- .
. --~----"'-' ---~ .
- -
- ~--- '"-.. --.,
-C....
~-.:.. :"_' ,_H
If7
" '
t' .. ",..,. ... - - ,','--... -., ,
- ~ ,- , ~ -, .'~ ~ -. . - ~ ~.~ .... ~.....- ......- ~ -- ~-, ~.
',- ._" _..._ ._~ ....4 ...... ~. ~ _ ~_.._ ~....._._... __.
.' -,:,.~.~~. w.:j.~.:.,::. .,;.......:.::..,..;.:...-::.....:";.,~-:A.....~......;-::,-.-
fT';;;;~?~~#J~{2
f......'"--./''-c;;'{_~:,g:~~J:;~~~;~,-':
. . - - -.-.....~. ,<,.' - - -
i ,.-:':.:- .
. . . '~;"'h:...">._.>.-6.- '.
" : '--';.~'
-- - -", :. :':'...- ~'- - - -".' .
...
-,'I
fLnb -'/
t
~.
0:2/
~~w~~~~/
y -<-<:~ '---?1..e~ ~ ;z; cz;zz;~
~-& --->>zu2U,,,?> q-C- d.e, ~.bjA~' C /.-y
J q~ ~ ~<,..u ~
~ ~a-:>U/ ~~?1 ~ J2
;Z~ ~ :z- ~C4u~~ ~
~~~~a.v~
~~~~~~~
~~ ~ ~~--v-?~
~~.J~#~~~
~~,~~~~~,
~~~ ~ ~-~
~.Z~/~~~.J,~
~ ~ ~z- ~ '--/~ ~
~-d~~ ~~-V
i
f
~
r:;
g
,-
...
Ip,
-;
)
---
O~a~ , J /'[ac~ -~L~~ Z Z;Z-L~
~ -dc~~aL-, c2~ ~~ 0-~~ ~j
~~ ~~ ~~ ~a~~
~~~/ r7.'V ~JP2~
z ~~ ~~~ ~z?--c:UZa-LL/~
J~ /U: ~ -'~A/fi_'~1
. ~..L// ~
~ ~ C::UL/~~~~/,
o/~/
~'~
qdCJ/~~#::;Ok
~/~
-, (tfv 97~d1iJ
~. 0:5;g-069t
0~4~~~
~~~~ .
J) ~ ~7V aJ .~~4iZ ~ ,~~:V ~
~,./ /97~
-
1 ~...
. .
.~. ;
. .:"":,.C \,:' :..'-"':::::'Y',Y:'<->~ ,,,:,,~.:, '~:,T--:: -:-lJi;f/f.."
199
"-
,
Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd # 108
Ashland, OR 97520
JUN 0 3 2002
June 3, 2002
Bill Molnar
Community Development
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Subject: Hearing s, Tree Commission, June 6th
Public Hearing, June 11,2002
File No. 2002/052
The residents of Ashley Senior Center Apartments are concerned about the
project at 2275 Siskiyou Blvd and i.t'sttvy-~norc-. . fof thirteen years.
Of particular concern is the removal of the huge trees along the property line which
afforded late afternoon shade to our apartments now and for years to come.
Of great concern will be the joint driveway which is also used as a walkway to the
bus stop and Siskiyou Blvd. The project unless down sized would add a lot of traffic
and pollution.
Will the planned cottages have fireplaces? If so, it would add greatly to the air
pollution.
Sincerely submitted,
?~3
Heinz Lewin
~~
'55::L- ogfcr
:YA
. ~~''''._-'''''''-''''--'' ."",....,-._...... ..-..--.. -'--'--
WHY BUILD SMALLER COTTAGES?
Since the 1920'S, the average family has decreased in size - while the square
footage of the average home has increased exponentially.
From our perspective, the excessively large homes being built today contain space
that is poorly utilized, consume far more energy than is reasonable, and are often
built from inferior materials that just don't stand the test of time.
The Bungalow is more about philosophy than a particular single style. Bungalows
and cottages are cozy, attractive, functional buildings - free of wasted space.
Cottage living is about a simpler pursuit ofllie (and less house cleaning).
Today, car dominated landscapes and the soul-less character of so many houses
make us yearn for friendly streets capes and sensible, ecologically oriented homes
that can nurture a family- values embodied in most people who live in Ashland.
Traditionally, the American bungalow cottage is a one (to one and a half)
story structure with the narrow side of the home oriented at the street. The
half to full front porch identifies the main entry to the home.
Aesthetically, the cottage is identified by large roof over hangs, lower pitched
roofs, exposed eaves, roof brackets and multiple siding materials. The porch
column bases anchor the home to the ground using such varied materials as
indigenous rock, brick, stucco, or wood.
· Cottage designs trade raw square footage for efficient use of space.
You gain architectural details, charm, and comfort
· Low maintenance of efficient cottage floor plans translate into a
simpler, more enjoyable lifestyle for your family
· The energy conscious cottage provides you with a lower cost of
ownership
· Quality materials and construction techniques produce a home that
will last generations
· The classic Arts & Crafts design never goes out of style, so the in-
demand cottage styling maintains its high resale value.
Sometimes less is more.... Classic styling with modern convenience.
, -.,~...,_.._,.<..__."..,-.~".,_...._--...,,-,~-_._----
~rVUI~t.)
~11()L1\r
~I~ TERlORS
'------ ---~
~Jl~3>if'~!;J.
All the House You Need
I can)t believe it. For once) Pm on top oj a trend. I by Sandy McLendon
WHO KNEW? Here I am pushing fifty, and all
of a sudden I'm cutting-edge. The reason is
my 800-square-foot house, circa 1947, It was-
n't much when it was built, and it looked like less dur-
ing the 1990s rush towards Versailles-for-the-masses. Many
of my friends have more than 4,000 square feet. They
have wet bars, swimming pools, marble-floored foyers,
hot tubs-you name it. I have a living room, a kitchen
and dining area separated by a peninsula, a bedroom, an
office, and a bath. And these days a lot of those house-
proud friends envy me. Sweet.
What's happening all over the country is that peo-
ple are beginning to discover the virtues of having smaller,
simple;hving spaces. While it's not yet a mass movement,
people are discarding, downsizing, editin~d discov-
ering what I already know. If you don't have it, you don't
have to pay for it. Or maintain it. Or clean it. Or replace
it with a newer model.
My life isn't Spartan, nor am I doing without any-
thing I need, The kitchen has the latest appliances. Air-
conditioning? Of course--this is Georgia. What I lack
is only what I've chosen to do without. I don't have
3,500 square feet of off-white carpet to worry about.
There are no marble bathrooms to polish, no bills for
pool maintenance, no fussy "company-only" areas. I can
do a light cleaning in an hour, and I can meet white-
26 JUNE I JULY 2002
glove standards with about h2lf a day's effort.
My friends are beginning to agree with me. One
of them is a divorced single mom who just bought a
new house in a new subdivision. I promise you the real-
estate agent won't forget her anytime soon, because she
bought what she needed, and no more. She qwlified for
a $200,000 house, but bought a $175,000 model be-
cause she wanted a more compact floor plan that would
allow her to keep better tabs on her kids. She went over
the model house with a fine-tooth comb, options list in
hand. She looked hard at every detail, getting rid of
everything that didn't jibe with reality. Out went up-
graded, light-colored carpet, and in went an inexpen-
sive cinnamon brown that could hide a few juice-box
stains--a choice she can easily afford to replace lateL
The stainless-fronted fridge was jettisoned in favor of
one that won't show little hand prints. Cabinet hard-
ware was scaled back from dirt-trapping curlicued brass
to white china knobs that wipe clean. The result? She
has an attractive, child-friendly house that she can keep
in good order without having to turn into Mommie
Dearest. With a smaller mortgage, she can pass up some
of the overtime that would keep her from her family.
An older couple I know took their cues from
Sarah Susanka's The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for
the Way J.* Really Live, a book [continued on page 28]
ROB lEANNA
...,.....--.-..
with an emphasis on good design rather than size. When
their children moved out, they moved from a McMan-
sion in an Atlanta suburb to one-third the space in a
downtown high-rise. The new place is full of beautiful
detailing they added, like mouldings and bookcases.
They love the symphony, and they can walk to it now,
instead of driving for an hour. They need only one car
these days, because both work in offices only a few sub-
way stops away, and the lack of a commute adds two
hours to both his day and hers. With less cleaning, and
no yard maintenance, they have time for each other
they haven't had in years. Best of all, a lot of freed-up
cash hit their retirement fund.
Downsizing isn't for everyone. of course. Some peo-
ple have large fumilies or work from home. Big, inher-
ited houses are part of some people's heritage. People long
forced to tolerate genuinely cramped conditions may have
a psychological need for some real space, once they can
afford it. Whether you're in a mansion or a mobile home,
though, it's possible to simplify. Some strategies:
Get the least expensive model that has the fea--
tures you actually need when buying anything electronic
or mechanical. A self-cleaning range is a necessity to me,
and I have one. But the downdraft model that first caught
my eye was a luxury I wouldn't have used very often.
By foregoing it, I saved over $1,000 and eliminated the
cleaning of a downdraft mechanism. Both my budget and
my leisure time benefited.
Cut back on multiples and share. A TV, CD
player, DVD or VCR, and a computer for every family mem-
ber is becoming the norm! Five people may have 15 or
20 entertainment machines among them to be paid for,
stored, maintained, and upgraded. That complicates life.
Sharing encourages family members to practice tolerance
and compromise, life skills everyone needs anyway.
Watch out for competitive drive, the Type A
behavior so many of us have. It's the reason many of us
must have a bigger house or car than our friends. I've
seen people with six-month-old computers become un-
happy because a more powerful model entered the mar-
ket. Their need---working and Intemet access-was sec-
ondary to the drive to impress their buddies.
Make room for luxuries.Your heart's desire may
be a home theatre system or a Jacuzzi. (Mine are silver-
ware and artwork.) Having what you need does indeed
include your pleasures. And having your pleasures around
you is what makes a house a home. Simplifying doesn't
mean stripping everything to bare essentials.
Find out what it takes to maintain what you
want-before you buy. If you think you want to put in
a pool, help a friend clean his a time or two,You'll gain
information no salesperson or brochure will ever give
you. It's the same for surfaces; find out what it will
take to keep fine woods, marble, brass, crystal, etc., in
the condition you want them. You may find that while
you love the idea of something, you simply don't have
time for its upkeep.
Forgive yourself for not getting it perfect. It's
hard to be absolutely dispassionate about every want and
every possession. I live alone, but I own two computers:
a desktop and a laptop. Each has features I want some-
times, and not at others. It makes no sense for me to
own both, but I genuinely enjoy them, and so they have
a real place in my life, regardless of cold logic.
There will be those who insist on large, elaborate
houses, no matter what. They'll stuff them with the lat-
est and greatest of everything. But I believe they pay in
ways I don't, or ever could. They work overtime to meet
big mortgages. They suffer anxiety when their friends
upgrade something, and rush to keep up. I smile at them,
I hope tolerantly. I feel I have something they don't yet,
something I hope they will have someday.
They're keeping up with the Joneses. I'm keeping
up with my life. +
.,......-..--
Cottage Housing Zoning Code
Click for specific information on Cottage Housing Zoning Code for Lanaley and Shoreline. or
contact Jim Soules
What is the Cottage Housing Development Zoning Provision?
The City of Langley, WA adopted the Cottage Housing Development (CHO) zoning code
provision in 1995. The zoning provision was the first of its kind to be implemented in the Pacific
Northwest and perhaps the US. The innovative nature ofthe zoning provision is that it
recognizes that a 1 or 2 bedroom home with less than 975 square feet (SF) of living area
should not be treated the same as the typical 2,000 to 3.000 SF home. The cities of Shoreline
and Port Townsend, Washington, followed next with a similar codes.
The zoning provision permits 4 to 12 small, detached cottages on a site that would normally be
developed with half that number of large homes. The zoning provision permits this type of
innovative change as a conditional use in all single-family zones. Half the cottages can be no
more than 800 SF, and the other half 700 SF, on the first floor and no more than 975 square
feet including a second floor. Each cottage must be adjacent to a common area. Parking at a
minimum 1.25 space per cottage must be screened from the street.
.
The first CHD project, Third Street Cottages, completed January 1998 by the Cottage
Company successfully demonstrated that 8 small cottages would fit into an existing single
family neighborhood as well as 4 larger homes.
Responding to a Shift in Demographics and Growth
The CHD zoning provision responds to a major shift in demographics-about 40% of US
households are one-person households, and 58% are one or two person households. Yet
almost all new detached housing is built for larger households. There is great demand for
quality, detached housing in single family neighborhoods. The Third Street Cottages is
occupied by 6 single women, and two couples.
Adopting the CHD Zoning Provision
http://www.cottagecompany.comlcczoning.html
. -,-.--.-
6/1/02
In working to meet the State of Washington Growth Management Act's urban growth and
housing goals, the City of Langley Growth Management Committee and the Planning Advisory
Board in 1994 set these criteria for any changes to the city's zoning code:
. Any land use code provision must retain and enhance Langley's village character and
foster strong neighborhoods
. Expand the range of options for detached housing
. Enhance affordability
The result was adoption of the innovative CHD provision in the zoning code. Quality housing is
assured since all CHD's require a conditional use permit, which includes a public hearing and
approval by the Design Review Board.
The Third Street Cottages and Greenwood Avenue Cottages
The concept behind the code changes was first put into practice with the development of the
Third Street Cottages and later with the Greenwood Avenue Cottages in Shoreline,
Washington. In each project. developer Jim Soules and architect Ross Chapin have built a
traditionally styled. beautifully detailed "pocket neighborhood" of cottages around a courtyard
garden. They have carefully designed the site, the cottages and the common elements to
foster community, enhance safety and provide privacy.
. The common garden, mailbox kiosk and sidewalks are natural places for informal
meetings among neighbors.
. Covered porches and kitchens overlook the commons - the "eyes on the streef' concept
of community policing; Neighbors look after one another; Residents feel safe
. Careful positioning of windows ensures privacy
. Parking is close-by yet located inconspicuously to the side of the cottage cluster
Implementing the Zoning
The original Third Street Cottages could not have happened without both public and private
initiative and, close cooperation between the City and the project developers. Within a year of
adoption, Soules and Chapin began exploring the cottage-housing concept. They had several
meetings with the City to review development concepts and clarify the provisions of the code.
Throughout the public review process, including public hearings, Soules and Chapin were
willing to take the extra steps necessary to ensure a quality development that blended with it's
neighbors. Construction on the 4-lot (.7 acre) site began in June 1997 and the first cottages
were occupied in January 1998.
This innovative project has demonstrated that clusters of smaller homes can be successfully
integrated as infill in single-family areas. Planners. architects. community activists and
developers from around the country have taken note of the project and it's unique zoning.
There has been widespread local praise for the project. Several cities are actively considering
adoption of some form of CHD zoning provision.
http://www.cottagecompany.comlcczoning.html
6/1/02
Excerpts from the City of Shoreline Municipal Code
On June 12, 2000 the City of Shore6ne (WA) City Council adopted the following development
code provision permitting "cottage housing" in all R-6 (standard single family zone - minimum
7,200 SF lot size) zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The City of Shoreline does not
have a Design Review process. and to increase the likelihood of cottage housing compatible
with existing residential areas it was intended for this code section to be somewhat prescriptive.
All wording in italics is information from The Cottage Company and not in the code provision For
more information contact the City of Shoreline Department of Planning and Development
Services (206) 546-1811.
Cottage Housing
1. The total floor area of each cottage unit shall not exceed 1,000 square feet (space over 6
feet). The maximum first floor or main floor area for an individual cottage housing unit shall be
as follows:
.For at least 50 percent of units in a cluster, floor area shall not exceed 650 square feet;
.For no more than 50 percent of units in a cluster. floor area may be up to 800 square feet.
2. The following number of cottage housing units shall be allowed in place of each single family
home allowed by the density ofthe zone: (R6 zone requires minimum 7,200 SF lot)
.If all units do not exceed 650 square feet on main floor 2.00
.If any unit is between 651 and 800 square feet on main floor 1.75
3. Cottage homes shall be developed in clusters of minimum 4 to a maximum of 12 homes.
4. The height limit for all structures shall not exceed 18 feet. The ridge of pitched roofs with a
minimum slope of 6 to 12 may extend up to 25 feet. All parts of the roof above 18 feet shall be
pitched. (Heights intended to allow maximum one and one half story homes - not two story
skinny homes. A proposed 75% of roofs to be a minimum 4 to 12 pitch was not approved.)
5. Cottage home units shall be oriented around and have covered porches or main entry from
the common open space. Common open space must be at least 250 square feet per cottage
home.
6. Cottage homes shall have a covered porch at least 60 square feet in size.
7. All structures shall maintain 10 feet of separation within the cluster.
8. Parking spaces for each cottage home unit shall be provided as follows:
'Units that do not exceed 650 square feet on main floor 1.5
.Units that exceed 650 square feet on main floor 2.0
9. Parking spaces shall be:
'c1uste'ted and separated from the common area by landscaping or architectural screen.
. screened from streets and adjacent residential uses by landscaping or architectural screen.
.not be permitted within 40 feet of a public street, except within a 50 foot area fronting on a
public street parking spaces may be within 15 feet of a public street.
10. Setbacks for all structures from the property lines shall be an average of 10 feet, but not less
than 5 feet, except 15 feet from a pubDc street (Cottage housing is developed as condominiums
- not allowed as small lot subdivisions. The Owner's Association maintains all bUildings.
Condominium Plan allows owners exclusive rights to private yard similar to home interiors.)
,....... -- _.-
- -0- - -- -
"--Q- - ----r----J
Excerpts from the City of Langley Municipal Code
Prepared by The Cottage Company. For further information contact the City of Langley:
PO Box 366, Langley, WA 98260 (360) 221-4246 Some words abbreviated
RS5000 Zone, Residential Single Family (minimum lot size 5,000 SF), and
RS7200 Zone, Residential Single-Family (minimum lot size 7,200SF)
Conditional Uses includes "Cottage Housing"
All development required to connect to city water and sewer system.
Cottage Housing
The following regulations apply to Cottage Housing Developments (CHDs):
A . Density and minimum lot area.
1. In CHDs the permitted density shall be one dwelling unit per 2,904 SF of lot area (15/acre).
2. The minimum lot area for a CHD shall be 11,616 square feet.
3. On a lot to be used for a CHD, an existing detached single-family residential or duplex
structure, which may be nonconforming with respect to the standards ofthis section, shall be
permitted to remain, but the extent ofthe nonconformity may not be increased.
B. Height limit and roof pitch.
1. The height limit permitted for structures in CHDs shall be 18 feet.
2. The ridge of pitched roofs with a minimum slope of six to twelve may extend up to 25 feet. All
parts of the roof above eighteen feet shall be pitched.
C. Lot coverage and floor area.
1. The maximum lot coverage permitted for all structures in CHD shall not exceed 40%.
2. The maximum first floor or main floor area for an individual principal structure in a CHD shall
be as follows:
a. For at least 50 percent of the units, the floor area may not exceed 650 SF.
b. For no more than 50 percent of the units, the floor area may be up to 800 SF.
3. The total floor area of each cottage shall not exceed either 1 .5 times the area of the main
level or 975 square feet, whichever is less. .
D. Yards.
1. Front Yards. Shall be an average of 10 feet and at no point shall be less than 5 feet.
2. Rear yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 10 feet.
E. Required open space.
1. A minimum of 400 SF per unit of common open space is required.
2. At least 50% of the cottage unit shall abut the common open space, all of the cottage units
shall be within 60 feet walking distance of the common open space, and the common open
space shall have cottages abutting at least two sides.
F. Paoong
1. One and one quarter (1.25) spaces per dwelling unit shall be required.
2. Location. Parking shall be on the CHD property. Parking may be in or under a structure or
outside a structure, provided that: Parking is screened from direct street view by one or more
street facades, by garage doors, or by a fence and landscaping; not be located in the front yard;
between structures is only allowed when it is located toward the rear of the principal structure
and is served by an alley or private driveway; may be located between any structure and the
rear lot line of the lot or between any structure and a side lot line which is not a street side lot
line.
G. Design Review.
Cottage housing developments are subject to design review per the requirements set forth in
Chapter 18.34 of this code.
",...-'--
- -0- . -. .
~~
October 02,2002
City Administrator
Greg Scoles
20 East Main Street
As~ OR 97520
Re: Sage Development, LLC
Devian Aguirre
183 Lincoln Street
Ashlan~ OR 97520
Planning Action #2002-052
At the August 13, 2002 meeting, with the Ashl8Jld planning Commission, and
following its approval of requests by Sage Development, LLC, I wish to reiterate
comments of many residents of the Ashley Senior Center Apartments that I shared at the
above mentioned meeting.
Devian Aguirre's proposal of Creekside Cottages embraces a beautiful
environment for people to live in. And one to be shared with the residents of the Ashley
Senior Center Apartments, by incorporating a walkway to the existing duck pond
surrounded by old established trees, shrubs & grmmd cover. Too, she is incorporating the
hundred year old weathered boarding into the cottages as a nostalgic accent for more
enjoyable living!
I might add that Devian's obvious endeavors to build cottages on a most difficult
site for best environmental living conditions, was chosen in lew of exploiting the land use
through the construction of muhiple storied apartments!
I am writing from some fifty years of practice as a licensed Landscape Architect,
in both California and Texas. Too, as a Graduate Landscape Architect, UC Berkley,
1950, a Professor in the Art Department ofUCL~ early 1960's, and the University of
Texas, Arlington, Architectural Department.
Kindly accept this letter of support to assist the pending discussion for the City
Council Meeting in mid-October.
cc: Devian Aguirre - Sage Development, LLC
Marilyn Bisnett - CBM Group
Attadunent: Signature of Support Page
"T""".' .- -
Ashley Senior Center Apartments
2301 Siskiyou Boulevard - Ashland, OR 97520
SIGNATURE OF SUPPORT PAGE
3<1
~ ~~'
. . - / J.,r
(/~4 ~f -:tr~t)t.
.&~~ @ , ~r/~
4~~hll~~/>--/ .:J:bCJ~
1?A<d /<mll ifO,1?~
)
I
Barbara christensen - PA2002-052.doc
RE: COUNCIL APPEAL OF PLANNING ACTION 2002-052
2275 Siskiyou Boulevard
Phone call received from:
EILEEN JONES
230 I Siskiyou Boulevard, #215
11 :30 a.m.
October 15,2002
Eileen Jones stated she is unable to attend tonight's meeting due to illness. She wanted the following
comment made part of the record.
"The people who submitted the protests are not speaking for all the residents of the Ashley Senior Center.
They have phrased it as if they are, but they are not."
Submitted by:
Sue Yates
Planning Secretary
...,........_~
.. ..,..-.. ..,,, .~.
~_S~4~~~
. 4~~:- :;1.t!J~.;L-aS;J--
~
1(ilLl 'UVl1L~~- ~:b~~~.Af'-'!t1J
~ lUAU'" 1 ~,. ~""..;;:f ~
~~ t ~., ~-trt'~
~ C~~~ 'If ) a4~A- ~-~,,~
A4~~ ~ ~~'l,~nIt~
~.' .s' ~~C~~l~
~ · 4f~~>N1 ~e~~-d~
~"!:lf ~ ~ d:.. ~A-
tf.~~.....th~cJ ~4'4~nu;zt~~ ~ ·
~t~~:~4I4<~
~Q I)t(~~<-~_'~
vJ~..u~~cJ:" ~~~
~ 4- fJ~. ..? - -, if
..
~JUN J i 200Z
I"~
" ""'-""",,-,.,."., '>:'^."... C<__. ",_,,,.,,.,_,.,,_,",,",,,..,_ ,,_.^_, -><__',
Derek severson - 2275 Siskiyou Comments
:~"""""-""-:-""--'''-'-''-:-':-''',",""-,-,,,-.,~" __.x-___.--;-.--.-.,>..:::,'~.,:':.:::...:=;-.--q"'ili=',~"""_",,_:,,_~,,_;;,',, ..:,-".,..c<_.<.,.,.,.'.;.;.,_" ,_.,.:,::'_:_""",,,,,:'.
:':'_:':"'_',",,':"^,_
n..."."."."..,..",..."',_:"............(
p
From:
To:
Subject:
Derek severson
Bill Molnar
2275 Siskiyou Comments
Bill,
I just spoke to Heinz, one of the residents at Ashley Senior Center. He left you a voicemail, but also asked
that I pass this along to you - he also stated that he wanted it to be clear that he is speaking on his own
behalf, not on behalf of the residents or management of the Senior Center.
He has looked at the most recent submittal, and feels that what they are proposing involves changes to
the Ashley Senior Center site as well as the project site to address parking/turn around radiuses. He feels
that this should also require some sort of planning action on the part of the Senior Center if changes are
being made to the Senior Center lot and its use. He also notes that some of the area proposed to be
used, which is currently fenced off by the Senior Center is in his understanding actually under city
ownership as the future cui de sac for Jaquelyn Street and not owned by the applicant or available as part
of this project.
Derek
cc:
Sue Yates
~UL 3 1 2DOZ
"~
.,....-..'''.-
Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd # 108
AsWand, OR 97520
Bill Molnar
Community Development
Ashland, Oregon 97520
June 28, 2002
Subject: Addition to our Letter of June 3rd
Concerning Project 2002/052
The extreme negative impact on the accustomed life and safety of the residents of
the Ashley Senior Center Apts has not changed.
The trees along Our property line will still be removed for the need of the proposed
carports.
Their proposal states that we have 6lr..."", "n<oneHtnd 64 parking spaces here at
Ashley Senior Center. Actually we have 62 units with 67 residents, some not
seniors, and 64 parking spaces. lbis to me is a direct attempt to circumvent the
law for required parking spaces. Now that the Fire Marshall determined it is illegal
to park or unload in the existing driveway, we might have to designate some parking
spaces for UPS, taxis, mail truck - any loading or unloading, etc.
All residents, Some in their eighties and nineties, must walk through the parking lot
to reach the dumpster.
For the proposed project to be approved it must use our parking lot and driveway,
instead of connecting to J aquelyn Street.
Our environment and safety is too extremely affected and should be respected and
preserved, We are not against progress, as long as it is contained within their own
property lines.
~;~
Heinz leWin
-----
End: Letter with arborist's opinion
/~s
JUN 2 8 2002
o
l\( <'1
\k)~- , I<::l C(jl>___
Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd #108
Ashland, OR 97520
, 1 '0 the 11ayor of Ashland and
Council Members
RE: Ashland 11unicipal Code Section 18.108.110
Notice of Appeal to Council
As a resident of the Ashley Senior Center 1 was informed by management that the
eviction warning against me was being shredded, but not to petition other tenants
or to collect signatures opposing the adjacent project, and to only speak for myself.
In contradiction, 11r. Ken De Haas, also a resident here, revealed that the resident
manager \.\ill ty-pe a letter to the City Council for him to collect signatures in fa.....or
of this project.
So far all people speaking in favor of the project because of the unique cottages,
failed to mention that their success depends on using the parking lot and drive \vays
of the Seniors and Impaired at the Ashley Senior Center.
Please ignore all lobbying and focus on the facts of the appeaL '1 his project would
be of no concern if developed to stay \.\ithin their O\.\TI property' lines.
I am attaching three copies that were submitted to the Planning and' l'ree
Commission concerning previous proposals and final hearing on August lY\ 2002.
Sincerely submitted,
Heinz Lewin Date:
..Q/f~~~ !CJj,O ~Z
~c~o:~res: C{3) / (U (
.',...........---
Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd # 108//
Ashland, OR 97520/
\
'--
IV!
/ .'
/'"'
Bill Molnar
Community Development
Ashland, Oregon 97520
\
"'---------
;'
/
/
/
,/1
/'
Subject: Hearing s ' Tree Commission, June 6th
Public Hearing, June 11,2002
File No. 2002/052
The residents of Ashley Senior Center Apartments are concerned about the
project at 22 75 Siskiyou Blvd and it.:s.impact on our: environment of thirteen years.
Of particular concern is the removal of the huge trees along the property line which
afforded late afternoon shade to Our apartments now and for years to Come.
Of great concern will be the joint driveway which is also used ru; a walkway to the
bus stop and Siskiyou Blvd. The project unless down sized would add a lot of traffic
and POllution.
Will the planned Cottages have fireplaces? If so, it would add greatly to the air
POllution.
Sincerely submitted,
')
..i--~-7
' / c ,~, '--
,_/, --L .::== :J
"
.'-
Heinz Lewin
/1
~/
" "-
CX~.C{.~
Bill ;\riolnar
ClJmmunity Development
Ashland, Oregon 97520
------- - ... . .
( I ./'"'
\. /
'\ ~
Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd #108
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject:. Addition to our Letter ofJune yi
Concerning Project 2002/052
The extreme negative impact on the accustomed life and safety of the residents of
the Ashley Senior Center Apts has not changed.
The trees along our property line will still be removed for the need or the proposed
carports.
Their proposal states that we have 60 apartments and 64 parking spaces here at
.-\shley Senior Center. Actually we have 62 units with 67 residents. some not
SenIors, and 64 parking spaces. This to me is a direct attempt to circumvent the
law for required parking spaces. Now that the Fire iviarshall determined it is illegal
to park or unload in the existing driveway, we might have to designate some parking
spaces for UPS. taxis, mail truck, any loading or unloading, etc.
All residents . some in their eighties and nineties, must walk through the parking lot
to reach the dumpster.
For the proposed project to be approved it must use our parking lot and driveway,
instead of connecting to Jaquelyn Street.
Our environment and safety is too extremely affected and should be respected and
preserved. Weare not against progress, as long as it is contained within their own
property lines.
S .incer~y sUbmitL-ted,/ ..
(JL~<S( -
~;:O:::Lt. d
Heinz Lewin
End: Letter with arborist's opinion
'.-.-'r- --.
1 lit iUWURIST me
- L~\I._~
.~ PeteSeda~.. ~:s
- Urban Forester, General Contractor, & Certified Arbor;st
'From Treetop to Root Tip, We Care./I
1257 Siskiyou Blvd. # 224. AShland,OR 9752(
Since 1977, Bonded & Insured license # 65597
E-mail pete@thearborist.com WWW.thearborist.com
(541) n0-6789 or 488-5678 fax 488-8700
To: Heinz Lewin
2301 Siskiyou Blvd., APT. 108
Ashland, OR 97520
Ph: 552-0849
June 24, 2002
Re: Trees on the property line of2275 Siskiyou Blvd. and 2301 Siskiyou
Blvd., APT. 108
Dear Heinz,
Cottonwoods along the west side of the retirement home property should be
examined and pruned regularly. If that is done the trees may be an asset and
last for many years to come. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely, ~ .
r //' ~
/
Pete Seoo
C ertifie Arborist, Urban Forester
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Council Communication
Title: Consideration of the disposition of potential surplus real property.
Dept: Administration
Date: October 15, 2002 (Continued from September 17, 2002)
Submitted By: Greg Scoles, City Administrator
Reviewed By: Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Synopsis:
During the city goal setting process the council requested that staff prepare an inventory of lands not
designated for parks or open space but which were owned by the city. During the last council meeting
the council determined that they wanted additional information on six specific properties, which have
the potential for being considered surplus.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the council direct staff to take the actions indicated on the six properties listed
under background information below.
Fiscal Impact:
There should be no adverse fiscal impact from any of the recommended actions, with the exception of
moving the material storage yard on Glenview Drive, which might result in additional operational costs.
Background:
At the city goal setting workshop conducted on February 1, 2002, the council requested that staff prepare
an inventory of property that was owned by the city. The intent of reviewing this inventory was to
determine if there were any properties, which were owned by the city but were not committed to any
particular use and could therefore be considered surplus. At the meeting on September 11th the council
indicated that they wanted to evaluate 6 specific properties to determine if there was a potential to declare
them surplus.
Following are the properties identified by the council and
the staff's recommendations as to how best to deal with
them.
1. Single Family Lot - Twin Pines Circle
This is a vacant 6,000 sq. ft. single-family lot adjacent to the
Oak Knoll Golf Course. The property is designated as
Single Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is
zoned R-l-10. A portion of this lot is currently being used
as part of the access drive to the golf course. It appears as
though this property was never dedicated for parks purposes
and staff has determined that there is no need to retain this
lot in city ownership.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the council direct staff to take the steps necessary to
modify the access drive to the golf course and to develop a plan to market and sell the property.
Prior to any sale of the property, ORS 221.725 requires that the city hold a public hearing
concerning the sale. This hearing would be conducted after a market value for the property is
developed. All costs associated with modifying the drive, moving utilities and marketing the
property would be charged to the sale of the property.
2. Nevada Street Storage Lot
This property is approximately 21,000 sq. ft.
and is currently utilized for pole storage for the
Electric Department. The property is
designated as Single Family Residential in the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned R-1-5.
There is also a small out building on the site
which houses some communications switch
gear. The property was previously an electric
substation and an environmental assessment
would be required prior to any sale of the
property. The property has the potential for
being developed with 2-3 single-family homes.
Other than its current use, there are no plans
for the future use of the property.
Recommendation: It is recommended that this property continue to serve as a pole storage
facility until the city acquires a replacement property, which might be better suited for storage
activities. At that point the city could consider selling this property. (See No.6. below)
3. Westwood Street/Strawberry Lane
This property is approximately 2.1 acres and
is currently vacant. The property is
designated as Low Density Residential in the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RR-.5. It
can be developed with up to 4 single-family
homes (1/2 ac. min.). The property is subject
to the Strawberry LID, which will provide all
of the required street improvements. There
are no uses planned by the city for this
particular property.
Recommendation: It is
recommended that the council direct
staff to take the steps necessary to
develop a plan to market and sell the
property. Prior to any sale of the
property, ORS 221.725 requires that the city hold a public hearing concerning the sale. This
hearing would be conducted after a market value for the property is developed.
r~'
4. Imperatrice Property
This property is approximately 840
acres located outside the city's urban
growth boundary. It is currently
zoned for EFU (exclusive farm use),
which has a minimum lot size
requirement of 80 acres. There are
currently 6 separate parcels on this
property. The property was
purchased as a spray irrigation site
for the wastewater treatment facility.
Since the property is no longer
required for use in the wastewater
treatment process it could be
considered surplus. There are no uses
planned by the city for this particular
property, Primary access to the site is
provided through a separate tax lot owned by the City off of Butler Creek Road and there is a potential
that access is available from N. Mountain Avenue but it would take further research to determine with
any certainty. The City did obtain a temporary construction access off of Eagle Mill Road, but it is also
unclear if this could be a long-term access as it is adjacent to ODOT right of way.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the council direct staff to take the steps necessary to
develop a plan to market and sell the property. Prior to any sale of the property, ORS 221.725
requires that the city hold a public hearing concerning the sale. This hearing would be conducted
after a market value for the property is developed.
5. Gun Club/Lithia Springs Property
This property is approximately 66 acres
outside the city it is currently zoned
Open Space Reserve. The property is
subject to a long-term lease to the parks
department which has been sub leased
to the Gun Club. The Gun Club has
leased the property since 1968. The
current lease expires on May 30,2009.
The property also includes the
"headwaters" of Lithia Spring, which is
then piped to Ashland.
Recommendation: Since this
property is subject to a long
term lease, it is recommended
that no further action be taken
and the property not be
determined to be surplus.
r.,
.".,',.-.----'".-
6. Glenview Drive Storage Areas
These storage areas are not separate parcels and
are part of Lithia Park. The property is
designated as City Parks in the Comprehensive
Plan and the area to the west of Glenview Dr. is
zoned as R-I-7.5 and the area to the east of
Glenview Dr. is zoned Woodland Residential.
The property is currently used for the storage of
material for the public works department. At
this time public works is looking for an alternate
storage area and plan on eliminating the storage
activities at this site when such a site can be
acquired. There are no other planned uses for
this site.
Recommendation: It is recommended
that this property continue to serve as a
storage facility until the city acquires a
replacement property, which might be
better suited for storage activities. (See
No.2. above)
r~'
"" --,--.-_..._----"'-' ,..-,.
B ear
\\""\ :..-
\ c:u..>.,
\ ,t
Creek
r)
I j'
Watershed
Counci
c/o: Rogue Valley Council of Governments. POBox 3275 . Central Point. Oregon. 97502
tel: (541) 779.6785 fax: (541) 664.7927 email: charper@rvcog.org
Coordinator
Allison Dew
Craig Harper
.chillr
Paul Kay
Vice Chair
Larry Beskow
~
Caitlin Quinby
Municipal G
IndYru:i.a!
Jim Hill
A~riculture
Keith Corp
Keith Emerson
Representative
~
laura Hodnett
Aihl.and
Watershed
Partnership
JoAnne Eggers
Ro~ue Basin
Coordinatin~
~
Rose Marie Davis
Past Chair
John Ward
CITY OF ASHLAND
Re: Surplus property disposition - Imperatrice property
October 15,2002
Dear Honorable Councilors and Mayor,
The Bear Creek Watershed Council, as a member of the Little Butte / Bear Creek Water
Management Project (LB/BC WMP) Steering Committee, would like you to be aware of
the subject property's important relationship with this regional irrigation water
infrastructure redevelopment. May we please serve in an advisory capacity in the study of
the disposition of this important resource referred to as the Imperatrice property?
This property has significance to regional planning and water quality improvement efforts.
It is more than a parcel of productive agricultural land, Considerations in addition to the
value of the acreage include those of water resources and the irrigation canal location.
A primary objective of the LB/BC WMP is to enhance natural stream flows in terms of
both quantity and quality. This is critically important in the efforts to restore the function
of Bear Creek as a fishable and swimmable community resource.
The LB/BC WMP has been under study for the past few years and has a preliminary
timeline for commencement of construction in 2006.
An additional factor to consider is the inclusion of Ashland's reclaimed effluent as a water
resource in this regional project. This may be the most valuable use of this water and this
may be the least expensive alternative for the City of Ashland to meet the new temperature
standard when the discharge permit is to be renewed.
Representatives of this project spoke at the City Council meeting of August 21,2001 and
your support of the project at that time has helped it progress. We would like to give you
an update on the planning progress. We invite you to attend a public informational forum
on this project that will be held November 12th from 6:30 until 9:00 p.m. at the Rogue
Valley Medical Center's Smullin Center. If you would like to study this project in greater
detail we are at your service.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment
~'~r /~
"Our mission is to foster collaborative efforts that maintain, protect, and restore the
Bear Creek watershed and the Rogue basin."
Brent Thompson
P.O.. Box 201
Ashland, Or 97520
15 October 2002
Ashland City Council
20 East Main
Ashland. Or 97520
Re: Disposition of City land
Dear Mayor and Councilors,
Regarding the 800+ acres that may be sold, please take into account whether or
not the City should place some type of conservation easement on the property
prohibiting future partitioning and development and whether the City wants to retain
some or all the water rights for the property. Hopefully there is no hurry to make a
decision regarding the property. As with the sale of any City assets, there may be
some opportunities to do something far reaching and beneficial if conditions of sale
are carefully thought out. Thank you
Sincerely,
~~~.~~~
Brent Thompson
-..,- ,.-....---.......--.---.,,-... """'-'---"~"'-----'--'---~_._~'-'~"._--"'<-"."""-" ,.-...--._-,_.,~
or
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
Title: Designation of Voting Delegate for LOC meeting
Dept: Administration
Date: October 15, 2002
Submitted By: Greg Scoles, City Administrato]/J , ,~,~~
Approved By: Greg Scoles, City Administratd~
Title:
Designation of voting delegate for Annual Business Meeting at League of Oregon Cities conference.
Synopsis:
The League of Oregon Cities annual business meeting will be held on Sunday, November 10 in Portland.
This business meeting coincides with the League of Oregon Cities conference held November 8 through 10.
The City of Ashland will be entitled to cast one vote at the meeting. Voting by proxy is not permitted.
Fiscal Impact:
Cost for council members to attend the conference and meeting will be the cost of the hotel rooms and meals
for the time spent in Portland.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that one voting delegate plus an alternate be chosen from council members that propose to
attend the League of Oregon Cities meeting in November.
Background Information:
Each year the mayor and council members are invited to the League of Oregon Cities conference and several
usually attend, along with various staff members.
League of Ortyon Cities
77'" ANNUAL CONFERENCE and BUSINESS MEETING
November 8 -10, 2002 - Portland Marriot Downtown
Designation of Voting Delegate
at Annual Business Meeting
The annual business meeting will be held Sunday, November 10, at 8:30 a.m. Each
city is entitled to cast one vote at the business meeting; however, all city officials are
encouraged to attend.
Use this form to indicate those persons who will represent your city as a voting
delegate and alternate delegate. The voting delegate or alternate should pick up a
voting card at the Conference Registration Desk on Sunday morning prior to entering
the business meeting. NOTE: Delegates may not vote without a votina card. and
voting cards will be issued only to a Derson indicated on this form. Voting by proxy will
not be permitted.
FOR THE CITY OF
1kIdA/IIJ
VOTING DELEGATE
Name
/lf1/AJ Mou-
~d-
Title
ALTERNATE
Name
&1; lk/uLI
!1?f!.nv,&,/rr
Title
Return by October 25 to:
League of Oregon Cities
P.O. Box 928
Salem, OR 97308
Submitted by ~
# (Slgnatu(9)
Name ~ ~se.N
Title f!ltlj Lt ~
Telephone Number (5t1/) 4'1 f, 5J.o7
.....
M:ILOCILOCCONF\2OO2\8qUiplCh deIeg Itr ftm ,wpd
".,......"'"'-- '
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE: Discussion of the potential to maximize the City's energy independence by
utilizing alternative energy sources.
DEPT: Electric & Telecommunication
DATE: October 15, 2002 ~
SUBMITTED BY: Dick Wanderschei~
APPROVED BY: Greg Scoles~3~
/
Synopsis: As part of this year's council goal setting process, a goal was established to assess
the City's options to increase the use of renewable resources to reduce our
dependence on purchased wholesale power. Because of our relationship with
BPA, and our being surrounded by PacificCorp, our options are limited with
respect to purchasing renewable resources from outside our service territory. Our
programs and policies that encourage and give incentives to our customers to
install renewable generation equipmem on their side of the meter could be
expanded. The City also could expand city owned renewable generations within
the City. This communication will address and attempt to describe the options,
costs, and benefits of each approach.
Recommendation: This communication is for discussion purposes only and based on Council input,
could result in further study or direction to implement some of the ideas
contained.
Fiscal Impact: Each idea would have a fiscal impact that is described in general terms in the
background section of this communication.
Background: The City purchases all of their power from BPA, with the exception of about 2
million kWh's that is produced annually at the Reeder Reservoir Hydro generator.
The City receives this power from BPA via transmission lines that are owned by
PacifiCorp. This power is delivered under a General Transfer Agreement (GTA)
that BPA has with PacifiCorp that enables federal power to travel on Pacific lines
to the City. This agreement only allows federally produced power to be delivered
to Ashland. Our existing full requiremems contract does allows us to purchase
renewable resources from an entity other than BPA. This would require an
agreement with PaeifiCorp to deliver this power and also we would be required to
purchase transmission, load shaping, load scheduling and load following at open
access rates from Pacific. This would dramatically increase the cost of this
power.
E leetr ic/Teleeommunieation Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
A more reasonable option for the City is to purchase green power from BPA. We
currently purchased 1 aMW of BPA green power from the BPA. The premium
we pay on this power is $10.50 mWh or $91,980 per year. This purchase contract
nms through Sept 30, 2006.
One simple way to increase the use of green power is to increase the amount we
purchase t~om BPA. This could either be rate based or could be sold on a
voluntary subscription basis where customers would sign up for a surcharge or
buy blocks of green power at a higher rate. The surcharge method was used for
the Solar Pioneer Program~ We had 260+ citizens and businesses sign up for a
minimum of $4.00 month for a 2 year period, generating nearly $30,000. Using
the same methodology, the City would need 1,916 accounts to pay a $4.00 per
month surcharge to generate enough revenue to purchase an additional laMW of
green power from BPA. Charging the actual extra cost of $1.50 per 100 kWh for
blocks of green power would require 5,110 monthly blocks to be sold to cover the
increased annual cost of $91,890 for an additional 1 aMW of green power.
Purchasing green power using a rate based method across all of our customers
would result in about a 1% rate increase to all customers. Purchasing more green
power from BPA would increase the "use of renewable resources" but would not
meet the second portion of the goal "to reduce our dependence on purchased
wholesale power."
To accomplish this the City needs to increase the amount of renewable resource
that is produced locally. This can be accomplished by either the City installing
the generation or using various financed incentives or programs to encourage
customers to invest in direct application renewable resources.
The City currently has two programs, which are aimed toward encouraging
customers to invest in renewable generation. The first, which we have been
offering since 1996, is "The bright way to heat water" which provides either
rebates or zero interest loans for solar water heaters. This is a program we
purchased from the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) which had spent
several years developing the program and had implemented it quite successfully
in Eugene. Initial response to the original program resulted in over 160 citizens
who requested information on the program. Unfommately, less than 10 systems
have been installed under this program. After about 1 year of program operation
the City in conjunction with EWEB, tried to analyze why the program response
had been so disappointing. We concluded that lack of a strong installer
infrastructure, limited solar access for many residences, gas water heater market
share, and the cost and complexity of retrofitting existing homes all contributed to
the low number of installations under the program. The Eugene program had a
number of installations occurring in the new construction market, but in Ashland
virtually all new construction has gas water heating so this market isn't really a
viable option here.
Electric/Telecommunication Dept. ~l~
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
The City has also tried to encourage grid connected solar electric or photovoltaic
systems. This effort started in 1996, when the Council approved the Ashland Net
Metering Resolution. This resolution was the first net metering law in the
Northwest and attempted to further encourage grid connected systems by paying
full retail rates for excess generation for up to 1,000 kWh's per month. No
systems were installed under this policy.
In 2000, the City launched the Solar Pioneer Program which installed 30 kW of
total solar capacity at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Southern Oregon
University, City Council Chambers, and the City Police Station. Voluntary
customer contributions of nearly $30,000 is being used to purchase the output of
the 5kW systems at the SOU Library and OSF at ~25 cents/kWh until the
$15,000 invested by each institution is paid hack. This is estimated to take about
8 years. Since the customer contributions were for 2 years, this surcharge has
collected its target amount and no longer is being paid by Solar Pioneer
participants. In July 2001, we started a solar electric rehate program of $2/watt of
solar capacity to see if this would entice more installations. Four residential
systems have been installed and taken advantage of this rehate since it was
initiated.
Other Energy Options
Wind
Wind generators need a constant supply of wind energy at 20- 40 mph's. This
kind of resource still only achieves 30% capacity factors. Wind regimes with
lower wind speeds do not warrant wind generation. BPA has mapped wind
resources in the northwest and has discounted the entire Rogue Valley as being a
viable wind site.
Fuel Cells
Fuel Cell technology uses a chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to
generate electricity. There are a lot of prototypes and experimentation but no
commercial utility grade small-scale products are available at this time. The
source of hydrogen has typically been derived from fossil fuels so until this
hydrogen source becomes renewable, this technology technically is not 'green'.
Most emphasis on fuel cells has been in the transportation sector as major
Japanese and American car companies are beginning to offer fuel cell powered
vehicles on an experimental hasis. One interesting idea would be to utilize these
vehicles to generate electricity for the grid while they are not being driven.
Amory Lovens discussed this at a conference back in September of 2000. His
assertion is that vehicles are only operated about 20% of the time and therefore
could make up significant distributed generation resource if the utility invested in
the infrastructure that could allow grid interconnection for generation purposes
E lectric/Telecomm unication Dept. y~
Dick Wanderseheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
when th, ~e vehicles are parked. While this is certainly an interesting idea, it
seems tc be years offbefore the volume of these types of vehicles is sufficient to
make th! an available alternative. While the issue of metering generation and
purchasi :g it from the generators are complex, they certainly can be worked out.
The cit.x needs to keep abreast of these developments and make sure we can adapt
as chan~ s occur in this area. Right ..ow however, thence appears li:~'~: the City
can do t actually bring about the tr: ',,sition to a hydrogen based m. nsportation
and ger. ,lion system.
Solar E gy
Solar e! ~ric generation had its bit in the sp:~ce race and has ex~ : :.-need a
rebirth ~ :ently with deregulation, I ~ west coat energ? crises, a dc.:ire to reduce
our dep. dence on fossil fuel, glob: warming and a l. :neral deskc i:y customers
to own ~ .:ir own generation. Ever ith the existence ~.~fstate tax .~it, the city's
solar ek ~ric rebate of$2.00/watt, i~ economics of s, lar electric ~ ;:eration are
still a w .~ hard sell when costs an: . imple paybacks: :'e calculate .
Solar E .tric Economics
The sol electric systems purchase: as a part of thc olar Pionee. ?:ogram, cost
about ~ Vwatt of capacity and pri: have declined ~ ;ittle since t! :n, but this
reducti,has not been as dmz.' ~tk e:~pectec~, If ¥( take an ag ~ive
approa( and buy thin film coliec~ in bulk a?aounts you might i. :'51e to
achievt '~-.00/watt systems. The, %:k for ~ kW r idential sy? :'~, would be
:~ llov,,
.:stem costs $8,000
ess City Rebate $1,500
: ess State Tax Credit $1,500
:nal System Cost $5,000
Simple ~yback (lkW system) 2,~, kWh's ~ 5.6/k' 'h = $112.
Simple: ayback =$5,000/$112 = 4-:: .6 years.
Custor ~ investments are much m~ e attractive ifdir :cted to ene: ~.7 efficiency
improv nents and appliances, that:. ::~vcsting in a sol::r electric gc~,cration system.
Therefc: e, the payback must be improved considerably before we can expect
more i~ tallations in Ashland. One way this might lac accomplisk, cd would be if
the Cit.x. could intercede in the marketplace and actually help citiz~ r:s procure the
necess:~ v hardware at lower cost.
A go(> :ample was conduc~ ~ 1: - '~acrar:,mt ~ ~ '~nicipal Ut' , District
(SMU~ which has promote( k-'ri, m~ected PV %? ms since 1 i:,. In 1999,
they s~. :d the Pioneer II pr~ ~:'"':.~.':ch thr.'.ugl~ a -~mbinatim. incemive and
a gum ed bulk purchase of i .~ ~', ~hin 15 ~ coil, ctors, SML :: ~ped to get
ElectricFFelecor n tmication Dept. ~~
Dick Wanderscl ~:id, Director
90 N. Mountain \ye Phone: 41)488-5357
Ashland, OR 9 20 Fax: ~1) 552-2436
costs down to $3.00/Watt tothe customer. However, in September SMUD
announced that "industry co~ts for producing photovoltaic panels have not
declined as expected and there have been some internal budget and state funding
shortfalls." They suspended approving installations of any new systems until the
program can be reevaluated. Even with all of the resources that SMUD had,
coupled with their desire to get PV installed, utility intervention of the market
place still hasn't gotten prices which result in paybacks that would likely attract
many customers in Ashland. It is doubtful that Ashland could be more successful
than SMUD and therefore trying to influence the price of PV by City action seems
at best futile.
Another idea would be to partner with a private sector company that makes and/or
sells PV, and let them market and sell systems on our behalf. The systems would
be standardized and purchased at bulk prices. The existing rebate could be paid
directly to the private sector partner and they could handle installation,
maintenance and warranty work for the systems installed.
The city of Medford, Massachusetts tried this approach in 1999. Residential
customers were offered grid connected PV systems for their home at subsidized
prices. The project was a joint effort between the Massachusetts Electric,
Ascension Technology, and the United States Department of Energy (USDOE).
Utility and government subsidies, standardization of the system and having a
partnership with a private sector company resulted in system costs to the installing
customer of approximately $5/watt for a 750 watt system. This program was
originally offered only in Medford, MA a town of 57,000. Only 8 systems were
installed in Medford, so in February 2000 the program was expanded to all of
Massachusetts Electric's service territory. From February 1999, through October
2000, 60 resident systems were installed representing about 25 kW of capacity.
This project demonstrates the economics of P¥ even at heavily subsided prices
will only be attractive to a very small number of prospective households.
Conclusion
To make a major impact on the amount of wholesale power displaced by
renewable generation, a significant effort and large sums of funds would be
required. The city currently purchases about 160,000,000 kWh's of electricity
from BPA. To displace 1% of this purchase would require 160,000 kWh's of
locally generated renewable resources. Based on the metered production of the
systems in the Ashland Solar Pioneer program, the City would require 80 kW of
installed PV. The best case cost of doing this would be as follows:
80 kW ~ $8/watt = $ 640,000
If these entire costs were born by the electric utility and paid for by electric rates,
this would result in about a 7.3% rate increase. If customers could be persuaded
to cover half the costs, rates would still have to be raised by about 3.7%. As you
Electric/Telecommunication Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
are aware, electric rates have been increased significantly over the last 2 years due
to increased wholesale costs fi.om BPA. The city electric infrastructure is also in
need of a constant source of capital to maintain reliability and staff anticipates
increased capital costs as parts of the system continue to age. To invest additional
money in subsiding more renewable resources at this time of increased rate and
capital needs seems ill advised. Our currem subsidy of $2/watts will continue to
attract and help early adopters and citizens that want to invest in solar. Therefore,
our recommendation would be continue to monitor progress in fuel cells,
reductions in cost for PV and successful public/private partnership but leave our
existing program in place umil there is a major change in costs or technology.
E lectric/Telecomm uniearl on Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE: AFN Quarterly Report
DEPT: Electric & Telecommunication
DATE: October 15, 2002 ~
SUBMITTED BY: Dick Wandersche{d /k:~//
APPROVED BY: Greg Scoles ~/~ ~
Synopsis: This is the First Quarter Report for FY 2002-2003. It covers the period July 1 to
September 30, 2002.
Recommendation: This report is for informational purposes only and no council action is required.
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Background: As part of the work done by the AFN Advisory Committee, a quarterly report
format was developed. This fn'st report was completed in November 2001. This
is the fifth report and covers the period of July 1 to September 30, 2002. AFN
continues to make progress on both construction and connections. With the
departure of many SOU off campus students this summer, we processed a number
of disconnections. However, we still managed to have net increases each month
for both CATV and Internet accounts.
AFN is exceeding the Business Plan targets for CATV, Internet and Bulk CATV
services. We haven't lost high-speed data customers but the business plan
assumes a rate increase, which hasn't been implemented so the equivalent
numbers are lower. We will discuss this situation and a possible solution and rate
increase at the council meeting.
Electric/Telecommunication Dept.
Dick Wanderscheid, Director
90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357
Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436
tA
Vl QlAARTFRL Y RepORT
SUVV\..VV\..Gll'tj foy 2.001.-2.002.
AFN Actual to Projected Monthly Revenues - 2001-2002
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
o
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
1- Actual Revenues - - Plan Revenues I
AFN Net Cable Connections by Month FY 2001-2002
(Plan Year 4)
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
o
EOY
Aug
Oct
Dee
Feb
Apr
Jun
I_Actual per Billing - -Target I
Page 1
AFN Actual to Projected Monthly Expenses - 2001-2002
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
o
Jul Aug Sep Oct NCN Dee Jan Feb Ma" Apr May Jun
I_ActUal Expenses - - Pial Expenses I
AFN Net ResidentiallSP Customers FY 2001-2002
(Plan Year 4)
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
o
EOY
Aug
Oct
Dee
Feb
Apr
Jun
I_ActualperBilling - -Target I
...,...._c __
C1
Page 2
V'v
2002-2003
First Quarter Report
~V\ARTSRLY RSPORT
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
AFN Net Cable Connections by Month FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5)
-- -- ..;....-- ~ -
--
AFN Cable Connec- 3250
tions in the business plan 3000
are projected to be 2,531 2750
by Sept. 30, 2002. As of 2500
Sept. 30, there were 2250
2,597 connections, which 2000
exceeds the plan goal by 1750
1500
66. The plan projects an 1250
end of year total of2914, 1000
which means we need to 750
average 35 new accounts 500
per month to meet the 250
plan targets. 0
EOY J~
AFN Residential Cable
Modem Service as of 3250
Sept. 30,2002 was 2514 3000
2750
which exceeds the Sept 2500
30th target of2500 by 2250
14. The end of year tar- 2000
get is 2883 which means 1750
we need to average 41 1500
new accounts per month 1250
to meet the plan's bench- 1000
mark.. 750
500
250
0
EOY Jul
--1
Aug Sap Oct Nov Dee Jan Fell Mar Apr May Jun
1_ Actual per BiMing - - Target I
EOV Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
249925172550 2597
2404244624892531 2574 2616 2659 2701 2744 2786 282929712914
AFN Net ResidentiallSP Customers FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5)
---
--
--
----f
~ _ ~ ~ Dee JaIl ~ ~ ~ _ ~
I_Actual per Billing - - Targetl
EOV Jul Aug Sep Oet Nov Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2323 24052415 2514
2373 24152458 2500 2543 2585 2628 2670 2713 2755 2798 2840 2883
.......-+..._.....-..-
~
Vl QUARTFRL Y REPORT
AFN High Speed Data
accounts are projected to be
44.5. Using the current rate
of $6511month total data
revenues produces 40.85
equivalent accounts. Be-
cause the business plan as-
sumes a $71 O/month equiva-
lent rate in 02-03 the revenue 30
breaks down into 37.5 ac-
counts which is 7 short of
plan projections. So while
we have actually gained
nearly one new account
equivalent since Ju]y 30, un-
less AFN rates are increased
to plan targets we will con-
tinue to lag in this area.
Actua]
Target
EOY
40.24
42
<\ FN Bulk Service
Contracts (hotels and
motels) are projected
by the plan to be at 100
equivalent by July
2003. AFN is currently
at 139 bulk service
equivalents, which ex-
ceeds the end of year
target.
EOY
Actual ] 39
Target 76.7
Page 3
AFN High Speed Data Connections FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5)
60
50
--:-- --
--
-
---
---
40
20
10
o
~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~
Equivalent Units updalBd In meet Plan-Year 5
1_ Actual per Billing - -Target I
Jul Aug Sep Oet Nov Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
36.936.9 37.46
42.843.7 44.5 45.346.2 47.0 47.848.7 49.5 50.3 51.2 52.0
AFN Bu. Services Billed By Month FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5)
160
140
--
---
120
11lO
--.---- -
80
60
40
20
0
EOY Jut Aug sep Oct Nav Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
1_ Actual per Billing - - Target I
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
139 139 139
78.6 80.6 82.5 84.5 86.4 88.3 90.3 92.2 94.2 96.] 98.00 100.
. -"..,.......~._'_..~
{i{ V\.., QJAART5RL Y R5PORT
Business Plan Revenues and Expenses.
This graph presents estimated
montWy revenues totaling to
the annual amount included in
the business plan. The pro-
jected revenue potential for
each month is compared to ac-
tual revenues posted. The ac-
tural revenue was 458,720 The
100,000
projected revenue was
$460,544. However, Sept
revenues exceeded projections
by over $10,000 and already
October exceeds revenue pro-
jections by nearly $6,000. So,
revenues appear to be on track
with meeting plan goals.
AFN Actual to Projected Monthly Revenues - 2002-2003
250,000
200,000
--- -- -:--
--
150,000
---
50,000
o
-;
Jun
Jul Aug sep Oct Nav Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr
May
1_ Actual Re\enues - - Plan Re\el1ues 1
Actual
Plan
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee .Ian Feb Mar Apr May Jun
141,757 148,557 168,406
149,000 153,470 158,074 162,816 167,701 172,732 177,914 183,251 188,749 194,411 200,244 203,979
Plan expenses are projected
at $282,077 per month for
the entire year. This in-
cludes $92,000+ month in
debt services which is a
fixed cost for AFN's long
term construction debt. Ac-
tual expenses for the first
quarter equaled $780,386,
which if compared to the
projected total of$846,231
for the first quarter, means
AFN's expenses are
$65,845 below the plan esti-
mates.
,Jul Aug SeJl Oct
Actual 158,180 306,124 316,082
Plan 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077
Page 4
AFN Actual to Projected Monthly Expenses - 2002-2003
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100.000
50.000
o
-1
Jul Aug sep Oct Nav Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
1_ Actual Expenses - - Plan Expenses I
Noy
Dee
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,080
fA
V'v QJAART5RL Y RFPORT
Construction Update
The AsWand Fiber Network's construction is being completed by our own in
house crew since July, 2002. From July through September a total of about
3.600 fee of underground plant was completed and services mad available in
these areas.
Competition
Charter announced that on May. 2002 their analog expanded basic services would
no longer include the premium channels, ST ARZ, Encore, and Movie Plex. As of
Oct 8, ST ARZ and Encore were still included.
Charter's internet service 'Pipeline' now is offered at different service levels. Their
least expensive level is priced at $39.95 (less $10.00 if you have cable TV) and runs
at 256kb of download speeds and 128kb of upload speeds. This is much slower
than AFN speeds.
Charter's published rate for expanded basic is now $34.81. AFN's tier 3 rates is
priced at $28.46. Charter however has given a number of special rates well below
their published rates under 12 month service connnitment contracts.
Page 5
....- '-.,....--...-...