HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-07 Historic Packet~CITY ,OF
SHLAND
SONJA AKERMAN
CITY Of ASHLAND
(51
?
PUSUC HE INOS:
PLANNING ACTION 2003-150 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for cl~'welopment
. upon hil~ide lands, and' a Conditi6nal Use Permit to construct a new residence 20 percent in exCess of the
Maximum Permitted Floor Area (ldFPA) established by City Ordinance on the property located at 22 Scenic Drive,
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning.: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map ~. 39 1E 08 AD;
· ~;Tax Lot: 7401.
APPLICANT: T. Michesi Ryan
PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 is a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor,
8,325 square foot mixed use building at 88 North Main';Stree{. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested
to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain 'Corridor. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial;
Zoning: C-l-D; Assessors Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 9800.
APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines
PLANNING ACTION 2004-003 is a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to authorize the
conversion of a non-conforming structure into a studio apartment for the property iocated 987 Siskiyou Boulevard.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 10 CB; Tax Lot
6600.
APPLICANT: Marc and Aaron Heller
PLANNING ACTION 2004-007 is a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to operate the existing
residenCe located at 185 North Pioneer as a vacation home rental (i.e. one-unit hotel/motel). Comprehensive
Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 12400.
APPLICANT: Deborah DeLaunay
OLD BUSINESS:
B.
C.
D.
E.
Review Board =, appointments/volunteers
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
Articles for City SoUrce
Possible NatiOnal Register Nomination for Lithia Spdngs Property
Final Carnegie Library Restoration Work
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI.
VII.
A. National Historic Preservation Week - New Frontiers in Preservation - May 3-8, 2004
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. The next Historic Commission meeting will be on February 4, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the ~iskiyou Room.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting please contact the Community
Development office at 541-488-5305 ('I'TY phone number is 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 Title1). m m -J
LU
0
CD
Z
Z
I.-
U.,I
0
W
a0
Z
ILl
I11
Z
-I
-.I
LU
UJ
W
W
W
0
o
LU
Z
Z
LU
Z
W
U.I
W
0
Z
0
Z
ILl
Z
W
LU
LU
W
..~
I--
UJ
W
Z
I'-
Z
LU
UJ
-J
W
t'~
Z
>.-
Z
..J
Z
0
>,-
Z
..I
LU
I--
Z
0
Z
>,.
Z
..J
Z
0
o
W
Z
Z
I.LI
Z
Z
CiTY OF
dkSHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
December 3, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the
Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winbum Way. In addition to Shostrom, members
present were Alex Krach, Jay Leighton, Tom Giordano, Joanne Kdppaehne, Robert Saladoff, Terry Skibby, Sam
Whitford and new member Keith Swink. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja
Akerman. No members were absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Leighton moved to approve the November 5, 2003 minutes as submitted. With a second by Krach, the motion
was unanimously approved.
NEW MEMBER INTRODUCTION
Knox introduced Keith Swink to the Commission. Swink was recently appointed by the Mayor to replace Keith
Chambers, who is currently on sabbatical and won't return until next summer. Knox stated Swink is a contractor
who has worked on several projects in Ashland and will be able to add his expertise to-the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Action 2003-152
Site Review and Conditional Use Permit
44 North Second Street
Trinity Episcopal Church
Because he is the architect for this project, Giordano declared a conflict of interest and stepped out of the room.
Knox reported this application is for a 715 square foot addition to the back of the Parish Hall. The roof pitch,
width and depth will be similar to the existing building. He explained the need for the expansion is to
accommodate more bathrooms, more storage and meeting space as well as a kitchen remodel. Although the
Padsh Hall is not on the National Register of Historic Places, the Sanctuary is listed so plans for the addition
were submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review. SHPO had no problem with the
design.
Knox said Staff considers the addition to be an appropriate match with the existing .structures and is
recommending approval.
Bill Bartlett, representing Trinity Church, stated he was available to answer questions. None were forthcoming
from the Commission.
Shostrom opened the public hearing, but there was no one in the audience to speak about the application.
Skibby moved and Krippaehne seconded to recommend approval of this planning action. The motion was
unanimously approved.
Ash/and Historic Commission Minutes
December 3, 2003
CITY OF
SHLAND
Planning Action 2003-149
Site Review and 2 Variances
238 Eighth Street
Janet Larmore and Tom Strong
Knox explained this application is being requested in order to make lawful an illegal unit that has been in
existence for at least ten years, possibly more. The applicants purchased the property last year with the
understanding the unit was an approved one, but while they were in the process of remodeling the building
discovered it was not. Because a unit less than 500 square feet would not be allowed on a lot less than 6,500
square feet in an R-2 zone, a Vadance is needed in order to keep the structure as a rental unit. In cases such
as this, Knox explained, the R-2 zone is more restrictive than the R-1 zone. The second Variance is being
requested to allow a reduction in the on-street parking standards. This would allow a 1:1 credit instead of a 2:1
parking credit. The main house on the lot is 670 square feet and the illegal unit is 357 square feet. After the
applicants (who own and reside in the adjacent house) bought the property, they began to upgrade the site and
the buildings. Both dwellings had separate water and electric meters. Knox commented the owners have
accomplished a lot of improvements since they purchased the property. In addition, the owners have offered to
lock in the unit as "affordable." As such, it will be one of the conditions of approval because all proposals
submitted by the applicant become conditions. Staff is recommending approval.
Janet Larmore, owner of the property, confirmed they have renovated both units on the property. She also said
they have had a very positive response from neighbors, who are delighted with the progress. She has lived on
the adjacent property for ten years and verified people have rented the illegal unit dudng that time. Additionally,
Larmore stated there are only a few homes on Eighth Street that don't have driveways, so generally, parking is
available on the street.
Shostrom opened the public hearing.
Paul Bergland, 255 Ninth Street Alley, stated he lives directly behind the illegal unit and he is supportive of
the proposal. While it would be nice if no one lived there, he said that both units on the property look much better
and he has no complaints.
Shostrom closed the public hearing.
Whitford moved to recommend approval of this application because the applicants are doing the right thing in
maintaining property that has not been previously maintained. Giordano seconded the motion. Shostrom clarified
that most issues are Planning Commission issues and commented that if the property were in an R-1 zone, this
would comply. The scale of the unit fits in well with the Railroad District and there are unusual circumstances
that triggered the need for Planning Commission approval. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
Planning Action 2003-150
Conditional Use Permit
22 Scenic Drive
T. Michael Ryan
Knox reported this application is for a new house that will exceed the recently adopted maximum house size
Standards in Ashland's histodc districts. The 8,569 square foot lot will only allow a 2,507 square foot house. The
applicant is proposing to construct a house 25% over the maximum permitted floor area, requiring a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). This is the maximum amount that would be allowed under CUP cdteria with Planning
Commission approval. Knox stated the property also has steep slopes along Scenic Ddve, which constrain the
location of the house on the property. The proposed residence would be 2,661 square feet with an attached 473
square foot garage, totaling 3,134 square feet. Knox explained the CUP process is discretionary. If an applicant
proposes more square footage than what is allowed in the ordinance and it falls into the exception area, then
the proposed house needs to be worthy, fit into the neighborhood, and not have an adverse affect on the Histodc
District. This is the first application to exceed the maximum house size since the ordinance was adopted.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
DeCember 3, 2003
2
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Knox remarked the proposed residence will consist of vadous roof heights and stepped back walls, thus
providing character to the design while breaking up the massing. The house will sit below Scenic Ddve because
of the steepness of the slope so only a portion of the roofline will be visible from Scenic. The attached garage
represents 19% of the 25% over the allowable size. If the garage was detached and separated from the house
· by at least six feet or made into a carport, the applicant would only need to ask for a 6% exception, and 6%
rePresents 154 square feet. Knox said the Commission needs to consider what would happen to the volume and
design of the house if the square footage was reduced by 6% and the garage detached. He also asked the
Commission to pay attention to the maps, the location of the house on the property and the histodc ranking of
the houses surrounding the property. The unusual circumstances of the sloping lot and the odd shape should
also be considered. According to Knox, Staff is in the middle on this application.
Applicant Michael Ryan stated he and architect Carlos Delgado began designing this house last September and
were not aware of the maximum house size ordinance that was adopted in October. He said he had been in to
the Planning Department several times but never made aware of the ordinance. Considering the proposal with
the many constraints, he feels the design works well within the spidt of the ordinance. There is currently an
eclectic mix of homes in the area. Ryan asked that this application be judged on the medts of the house rather
than being the first one to ask for the exception.
Architect Cados Delgado vedfied this was a difficult site and difficult timing. The owner wanted to submit his
application for a building permit around the same time the maximum house size ordinance was being adopted.
Regarding the neighborhood, Delgado said the average size of the houses in the immediate area is 2,750
square feet. Issues with this site include the hillside, shape of the property, setbacks and where to put the
garage. The two-story house was designed with the walls stepping back and will actually look more like one story
because of the slopes. He also explained the application will be up against the hillside ordinance because of
the steep slope. According to the geo-tech that is working on this project, the grading and erosion control plan
will be faidy simple..
Giordano remarked that normally, when there is a difficult site such as this, the proposed residence would be
smaller, not larger. Delgado explained the difficulties in separating the house from the garage because of the
constraints of the site.
Ryan clarified his options would be to receive approval for the project as proposed or to separate the garage
by six feet if the CUP is denied. If denied, he would also need to reduce the size of the garage so it would be
for a single car and take off 154 square feet from the house. He asked the Commission to consider what would
happen to the mass in that case. In his opinion, by moving the garage six feet away from the house, the
perception of mass would be increased because the buildings would be spread out. Also, he stated a denial
would result in a hardship for him.
Shostrom asked about the lot lines of the property and Ryan explained the lines were adjusted before he bought
the property to make the lot more saleable.
Delgado noted they had looked at separating the garage from the house but felt the design worked better if it
were attached. Skibby recalled the applicant had come to a Review Board meeting before October and the
design has remained unchanged. Knox reminded the Commission that regardless of when they came to the
Review Board, the decision needs to be based on what is currently before it and base that decision on relevant
cdteda in the recently adopted ordinance. Ryan asked if 6% reduction would really be perceived as less mass.
Shostrom opened the public hearing.
Stuart Gray, 1227 Munson Drive, stated Michael Ryan designed and built the addition on his home. He wanted
to mention that fact because in his opinion, Ryan is an artist. He knows how to build so a structure doesn't look
too big.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
December 3, 2003
3
CITY OF
SHLAND
Nick Damon, 2379 Old Military Road, Central Point, commented the design for Ryan's house will enhance
the value of the homes in the neighborhood and Community. Reducing the square footage will not help the
design, which has merit as it is. He has seen and admired Ryan's renovation projects.
Sara Sanders, 1227 Munson Drive, said she moved from a large home to a small home. Because of the lot
size, expansion was limited. When he was initially contacted, Ryan came with a list of references. She stated
he is an ethical person and built their addition to the letter of the code. She also commented that most people
have a grace period when ordinances are adopted and would like to see Ryan receive that consideration.
Marlene Mills, 34 Scenic Drive, noted she has lived on the adjoining property for 35 years and she is against
this proposal. She supported the Historic Commission when it recommended a lower figure be used for the
maximum house size in the historic districts. There has always been an empty lot there. After Robert McKee
bought the property, he divided it in half. She said if the lots were one, a beautiful house could be built with a
yard. Since there are now two lots, another large house of the same size could also be built. Her lot could
accommodate three homes, but she wouldn't think of doing that. Infill that has occurred in the area has always
allowed space around the houses. The lots have been larger and the identity with the neighborhood has not
been lost. In addition, she does not feel the design is compatible with the neighborhood. She acknowledged it
is a lovely house but not for that difficult lot.
Planning Consultant Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, 522 Park Avenue, Medford, stated She represents Chris Wood
and Dr. F.F. Sharkey. She read a letter into the record from Chris Wood, who has lived next to the subject
property for 26 years and who was unable to attend the meeting. He asked for denial of the proposal, citing the
tradition and need for more moderately sized homes with yards, and his concem that more people will be asking
for exceptions. He feels the effect on neighborhood relations can be lasting, and not for the better. Prairie-Kuntz
also submitted a letter identifying the third criteria under Conditional Use Permits as not being met in this
application and supplying supportive tables. She stated her clients are concemed about the compatibility of the
proposed design with the neighborhood. There are currently homes on various sized lots with beautiful yards
and trees. The proposed house is much larger in mass than surrounding homes. She also stated that from a
planning perspective, ignorance of the law does not get you out of the law. She commended the City for adopting
the ordinance and added it has already served as an example. Prairie-Kuntz also addressed concerns that the
drainage flow is proposed to the northeast of the property, which is uphill.
Francis Sharkey, 163 Granite Street, said the lot is adjacent and up the hill from hers. The lot is deceptive
because of the steep hill. Granite Street is a beautiful and much used street. From Scenic, only the top of the
roof of the proposed house will be seen. From Granite Street and Lithia Park, however, it will be quite visible
because the view will be looking up at it. She feels the owner should enrich himself and build his spec house
elsewhere. She is concerned about the drainage because during the flood of 1997, the Bed & Breakfast at 163
Granite Street she owns was flooded for a week. Historic neighborhoods need to have homes that don't stand
out like sore thumbs. Sharkey also stated she does not feel the style will fit in with the neighborhood.
Delgado stated the drainage will be accomplished as proposed through a legal access following the cOntours
of the site. He also stated the data brought forth in the findings he submitted contain the sizes of homes within
a block of this lot. The neighbors submitted data from a larger area.
Ryan commented it comes down to the fact that the neighbors want the lot left vacant. The ordinance was
passed with a 25% allowance. There would be no perceived difference in mass if he reduced the size of the
living area by 6% and detached the garage. He stated he would be willing to work with the neighbors on
landscaping by bringing in soil, etc. at his own expense. For his logic, this is a viable option, as the neighbors
would see less of the proposed house.
Shostrom closed the public hearing.
Skibby stated the issue seems to be what could be built vs. what will be built if not approved.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
December 3, 2003
CI.TY OF
SHLAND
Whitford remarked that he does not see the structure as fitting into the neighborhood. As the neighbore pointed
out, the existing homes are on larger lots. While he realizes the house will be built and that it is a beautiful
design, historically, it is not compatible.
Giordano said he feels divided. Part of him sees no reason to grent approval because the applicant has
suggested ways to make it comply with the ordinance. The garege location will always be an issue because
there are problems with the lot and by moving it, it could create more of a mass. It is a difficult site. Usually, the
building size would shdnk tether than grow with sites like this. On the other side, it is on the fdnge of the Historic
District. He can see the trensitional size of the house, but it seems out of charecter with the neighborhood. It is
incompatible because of the retio of lot size and building size. He would have a hard time supporting a 25%
increase.
Saladoff stated he has the same two ways of looking at the project as Giordano. The purpose of the ordinance
is to keep a more traditional streetscape by managing and controlling the scale, volume and rhythm of the street,
including patterns of lot coverege. There is a street perepective and neighbor perepective. While the house sits
below Scenic Drive, the neighbore have a point about seeing it from Granite Street. The lot coverage is
inconsistent with the neighborhood. The house is well designed and looks great, but Saladoff said his concern
is about the coverage and the applicant has pointed out ways he could meet the house size limitations.
Swink could also see the pros and cons. The lot size vs.size of the structure is a big concern. However, the
house will be built. The owner is willing to work with the neighbore to mitigate the appearence of size. It is
important to find a way to make this work for the community. There is quite a mix of homes in the area. Also,.
there are different lots that will be built on. The trede-off of the 6% could backfire and it might be best to
recommend approval. Skibby agreed.
Leighton, however stated she would like to see the size of the home shrunk. She wondered if it mattered if the
size of a spec home were reduced 100 to 200 square feet. In her opinion, design choices were made that
allowed the house to be larger. Also, she acknowledged this is a difficult lot.
Krech commented the Commission is getting proposals regarding large homes one after another and it is more
than a little disheartening. He would like to see a house built that would fit the lot, rather than maxing out the
CUP cdteda. He would also like the people involved to work together, perhaps reducing the size of the house.
Krippaehne stated she underetands what the applicant meant when he said the house could be perceived to
be larger if the garege was moved away from the house. She also thinks that because property is such a scarce
land resource, it is only a matter of time before larger lots are split into smaller ones. Like it or not, more and
more similar applications will be seen. If the size is reduced, the Histodc Commission would have no authority
to do anything about the design. She added this is a nice design for the property. She would not like to see an
old style arbitrarily assigned to that property. Krippaehne also noted there is no dominant style that she'could
discern in the area.
Shostrom said he agrees with all he has heard but what this comes down to is a design issue. He feels the
prairie style is fine in that location. From a design standpoint, the owner wants a larger house for a sale point
of view. Shostrom alSo remarked there appears to be a three-foot overhang everywhere except the garage,
which was drawn with an 18-inch overhang. He also noted there is no sense of entry on Scenic Drive because
the garage is on the front of the house. He asked what would the house feel like if there were no garage or
carport? Could this be mitigated? Would it really change the volume? Would it be any better if the application
was denied? Would the perception of the scale and bulk change?
Saladoff said that Krach's comment about maxing out the Conditional Use Permit process.made an impact on
him. Leighton added the applicant has calculated the exact square footage exception that would be allowable
for this lot.
Ash/and Historic Commission Minutes
December 3, 2003
5
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Giordano asked if it is sufficient reason to approve because the property is located on the fringe of the Histodc
District. Leighton noted it is still important to respect the line, even if it is on the fdnge.
Knox pronounced the Commission does not have to feel obligated to vote yes or no on this - it is all right to be
in the middle. He doesn't want the Commission to make a decision that will set a standard on the first
application. It is necessary to look at the pros and cons. The applicant has said there are options. What will the
next application be? The way we are going, infill will occur at the maximum exception. Consider the adjacent
lot/house ratios. Look at the target zone. He recognized this will be a tough decision for the Commission to
make.
Krippaehne moved to recommend approval of the basic plan of this application with the condition a sense of
entry be accommodated on Scenic Drive. Swink said he would like to amend the motion to provide a condition
that the applicant work with the neighbors in mitigating the mass with landscaping. Saladoff stated he would like
a condition that the applicant attempt to reduce the overall square footage volume. Shostrom asked what
attempts are being made to reduce the size? Giordano agreed - there has to be some areas where rooms can
be reduced and stated he would like to request a continuance in order for the applicant to come back with
reworked issues. Shostrom reiterated the design seems to turn its back on the street. Historically, entdes are
apparent on the street side of a house. There was no second to the motion.
Kdppaehne then moved to recommend approval of this application subject to the applicant working out the entry.
In addition, the applicant needs to work with the neighbors on landscaping to mitigate the issues on volume, and
reduce the size of the house by 154 square feet but retain the attached garage. Leighton seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued. Whitford stated he did not hear anyone speak in favor of the application that lives near the
property. Shostrom stated the Commission has heard the neighbors and noted he does not feel the scale is out
of proportion, rather the setbacks are out of proportion compared with the surrounding properties. Swink
commented the bulk is locked in, but not having a sense of entry could have a negative impact. Krech said he
does not feel this application should be pushed through and that if it were continued, it would allow the applicant
to come back with design changes. Krippaehne withdrew her motion and Leighton withdrew her second.
Kdppaehne moved to continue this application in order to.give the applicant and architect time to work on the
following issues:
· Sense of entry on Scenic Drive.
· Work with neighbors on landscape issues.
· Reduce size of residence by 154 square feet.
· Retain attached garage or turn into carport or surface parking area.
· Make roof eaves consistent.
· Reduce modemization of south elevation where second story cantilevers over the first story.
Leighton seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote.
Planning Action 2003-150 should come back to the Historic Commission on January 7, 2004.
OLD BUSINESS
Review Board - Following is the December schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from
3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
December 4th
December 11th
December 18th
December 24th
December 31st
Skibby and Krippaehne
Skibby, Saladoff and Swink
Skibby, Leighton, Giordano and Whitford
Skibby and Krach
Skibby, Shostrom and Swink
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
December 3, 2003
CITY OF
4kSHLAN. D
Proiect Assignments for Planning Actions
PA #2000-120 485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier) Shostrom
PA #2002-100 142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods) Leighton
PA #2002-125 44 North Second Street (Trinity Episcopal Church) Skibby
PA #2003-005 35 S.' Second Street (Winchester Inn) Krippaehne
PA #2003-035 665 East Main Street (Kirk McAIlister) Shostrom
PA #2003-045/110/122 230/232 VanNess Avenue (Serin Eggling/Sherri Morgan) Leighton
PA #2003-090 125 North Main Street (Lynn Thompson) Krach
PA #2003-094 45 Wimer Street (Paul Crafft) Whitford
PA #2003-108 115 Church Street (Nancy Seward and Tim Bond) Saladoff
PA #2003-092 124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov) Krippaehne
PA #2003-152 44 North Second Street (Tdnity EpiscOpal Church) Swink
Possible National Re,qister Nomination for Lithia Springs Property - There has been no change on this.
Carnegie Library Restoration - There was nothing new to report.
NEW BUSINESS:
None
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Knox announced the design charrette for the old Copeland Lumber site was occurring simultaneously with the
Historic Commission meeting. The facilitators will take input from the meetings in order to generate an
application. He invited the commissioners to stop by the existing building on the site to look at drawings that
were created from input during the last charrette. The members would like a special session for the applicants
to present proposals to the full Commission. Knox will set something up.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Leighton and second by Saladoff, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn
the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
December 3, 2003
Notice is' hereby given, that 'a~-PUBLIC~?I,LF. ARING .On the following ~ ^c°pyof:~e ,ppr~t~..; . ..{~,.~nents and ev~ence rel~ upon by:~he 'pplicani and ..
requ%t'V,~h i'eSpect to the ASHLAND I( ~) USE ORDINANCE will ap~a~ criteria'are~ ~ble for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
be held before lhe ASHLAND PLANNINH ~OMMISSlON HEARINGS reasonaae co. st, If mque~,~l. A copy of ~e Staff Report will be available for Inspection
seven days rmor to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All
BOARD on January 13, 2004 at 1:30 P.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC materials are available st the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development
CENTER, t175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordir',ance cziteria applicable to this agpilcation are attached to this notice, Oregon law
states that failure to raise an objeclion concerning this application, either In ~ or by
letter, or failure to provide sufr~:lent speclf~ 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 c~te~on the objection is based on
also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on ~ c~.e~m. Failure of the applicant to raise
constitutional or other, issues relating to proposed conditions of aPl~OVal with sufficient
specificity allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages
in circuit courL
and Engineering Services, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Headng, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those
in attendance conoerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the leng(h
of testimony and require that comments be ~ to the applicable criteria. Unless
the mcerd shall remain open for at least seven days afler the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this requesL please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning DeparlrnenL at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone
number is 1-800-735-2900.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on January 7, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-150 is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for
develOpment upon hillside lands, and a Conditional Use permit to construct a new residence 20 percent in
excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MFPA) established by City Ordinance on the property located
Assessor'sat 22 SceniCMapDrive.#: 39Comprehensive1E 08 AD; TaxPlanLot: Designation:7401. Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7,5;
APPLICANT: T. Michael Ryan
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS'
$8.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria·
A. That .the use would be in conformance with all standards
within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal
law or program.
B. 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.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse
material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use
on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of
the zone:
Similarity in scale, bulk, and'coverage.
Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass' transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
of facilities.
Architectural compatibility with the impact-
area. ~
Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the ComPrehensive Plan.
Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT CRITERIA
.18.62.040 Approval and Permit Require. I
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 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.
Findings of Fact
for
Site Review
Physical & Environmental Contraints
Hillside Lands
&
Addendum to 11/07/03 application
for Conditional Use Permit for
exceeding the MPFA
in the Historic District
Subject Property:
22 Scenic Drive
Assessor's Map 391E08AD Tax Lot 7401
Submitted to:
City of Ashland Planning Department
Submitted for:
Michael Ryan
Prepared by:
Carlos Delgado
Carlos Delgado Architect
545 A Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
12/22/03
, Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
12/22/03
Planning Commission and
Ashland Planning Department
City of Ashland
Re:
Site Review - Findings of Fact for compliance with
Development Standards for Hillside Lands
Project:
Ryan Residence (New Residence)
22 Scenic Drive
Ashland, Oregon
Zoning: R-1-7.5
Applicant: Michael Ryan
This request is being submitted for a Site Review of the Physical and
Environmental Constraints for a new residence proposed for a property
classified as 'Hillside" according to city criteria. This application
demonstrates compliance to Development Standards for Hillside Lands
pursuant to Section 18.62.080. Also enclosed is revised findings, plans
and elevations to address recommendations by the Historic Commission
for the CUP application on 12/03/03 for exceeding the MPFA.
The relevant Ordinance Sections and Design Standards for Conditional
Use Permit are described in the following 'Findings of Fact'.
Findings by the Applicant/Agent are inserted immediately following each
section of the ordinance.
Respectfully,
Carlos Delgado
Architect
2
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Following are the Chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and
sections of the Design Standards deemed applicable, in whole or in part, to
this Site Review & Conditional Use application:
ORDINANCES
18.20 - Single-Family Residential District
18.20.040. E. to H. - Establishing Limits on Maximum House
Sizes in the Historic District
18.61 - Tree Preservation and Protection
18.62 - Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.62.080 - Development Standards for Hillside Lands
18.68 - General Regulations
18.70 - Solar Access
18.72 - Site Design & Use Standards
18.92 - Off-Street Parking
18.104 - Conditional Use Permits
Page
4
6
9
12
14
27
3O
32
36
42
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
Section II - Approval Standards and Policies A. Ordinance Landscaping Requirements
D. Parking lot Landscaping and Screening Standards
E. Street Tree Standards
Section III - Water Conserving Landscaping
Guidelines and Policies
45
45
47
49
EXHIBITS:
Site Evaluation and Geotechnical
Engineering Report
Site Plan
Cut and Fill Plan
Grading Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations
Floor Plans
Sheet AS1.0
Sheet AS1.1
Sheet AS1.2
Sheet L1
Sheet A2.1 & A2.2
Sheet Al. 1 & A1.2
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Chapter 18.60- Single Family Residential District
18.20. 010 Purpose
The purpose of the R-1 district is to stabilize and protect the suburban characteristics of
the district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life
18.20. 020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Single family dwelling, utilizing at least two of the following design features to
provide visual relief along the front of the residence:
1. Dormers
2. Gables
3. Recessed entries
4. Covered porch entries
5. Cupolas
6. Pillars or posts
7. Bay window (min. 12" projection)
8. Eaves {min. 6" projection)
9. Off-sets in building face or roof{min. 16") (Ord. 2612 S2, 1991)
[3
Complies: The proposed use is for a single-family dwelling including the following
features; stepped back second floor creating "dormer like" second floor, a recessed
covered porch entry, multiple offsets responding to site condition, and 36" eaves.
18.20. 040 General regulations
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-1 zone shall be fiue thousand
(5, 000) square feet, except six thousand (6, 000) square feet for comer lots. R-1 areas
may be designed for seventy-five hundred (7,500), or ten thousand (10, 000) square foot
minimum lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make larger sizes necessary.
Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number following the R-1 notation which
represents allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-1-5 5, 000 square feet
R-1-7.5 7,500 square feet
R-1-10 10, 000 square feet
Complies: The lot is zoned R-1-7.5 and is 8,569 s.f. in area
B. Minimum lot width:
Interior lots 50feet
Comer lots 60feet
All R-1-7.5 lots 65feet
All R-1-10 lots 75feet
4
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Complies: The lot is odd shaped (refer to site plan) with north/south lot width of 10.89'
@ Scenic Drive to a north/south lot width of 73.39' at the east lot line averaging to a
width of 42.14'and a peak width at a triangular section of 106.36'
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80)feet, and a maximum
depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further
development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth requirements shall not apply to
lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than its depth,
and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (150)feet in width. (Ord. 2052, 1979; Ord.
2425 8:3, 1988}
Complies: The lot depth ranges from 171.00' to 41.50' in its odd configuration with
an average depth of 106.00'. The lot width average of 76.00' is less than the lot
depth.
D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15feet excluding
garages. Unenclosed porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or
the width of any existing public utility easement, whichever is greater, from the front
property line. All garages accessed from the front shall have a minimum setback of 20'
from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a comer lot abutting a
public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story
in excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18. 70 which
provides for $olar Access. (Ord. 2097 S5, 1980; Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752, 1995)
Complies: The proposed Front yard is triangular shaped and averages 50 feet in
direct line to the garage entrance doors. The property frontage along Scenic Drive is
askew more than 45 degrees from the garage entrance doom creating a conforming
garage setback condition for 15 feet (front yard setback of 15 feet pertains to sides
of garages). Site access restrictions due to slopes greater than 40% along the
Scenic Drive restrict access to proposed driveway as submitted (Refer to site plan).
The proposed side yards are a minimum of 6'-0" on the north and south side. The
rear yard is 10'-0" to the main house structure on the ground level and 22'-0" to the
second story level. See Solar Access setbacks in the findings that follow for solar
setbacks.
E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35)feet or two and
one-half(2 1/2) stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the Historic
District shall not exceed a height of 3O feet.
Complies: The structure is 24'-0" high at the highest roof ridge and 24'-0" at the
highest second story hip roof eave These measurements are taken from the natural
grade directly below the high points of the roof. The structure is 2-stories in height
(see East Elevation on sheet A2.2).
F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50%) percent in an R-1-5
District, forty-five (45%)percent in an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (40%)percent in an R-1-
10 District.
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Complies: The total impervious surface lot coverage proposed is 3,693 s.f. This
amounts to 43% of the lot area of 8,569 s.f. This is less than the 45% requirement
for the R-1-7.5 District.
G. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District. The
maximum permitted floor area for primary dwellings within the Historic District shall be
determined by the following:
1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors
(gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the
building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the
structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not
include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached
accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory
residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except
that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures.
2. The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPFA), prouided however, that regardless of lot size, the MPFA shall not exceed 3,249
sq. ft.:
Lot area x Adj. Factor = Adjusted lot area x 0.38 FAR = MPFA
(from Table 1)
Lot Area Adj. Lot Area Adj. Lot Area Adj. LOt Area Adj.
Factor Factor Factor Factor
0-2500 "1.20 6501- 0.88 11001- 0.66 15501-16000 0.55
7000 11500
2501- 7001- 11501-
1.16 0.85 .064 16001-16500 0.54
3000 7500 12000
3001- i 7501- 12001-
3500'i1'12 i8000 0.82 12500
i0.62
16501-17000ii0.53
} 12501-
3501-
8001-
!i1.08 0.79 0.61 17001-175001i0.52
4000 8500 , 13000
............................. ; .................................................................................. J !
4001 - 1.04 8501 - I! 13001-
4500 9000 i0.77 0.60 17501-18000 0.51
i 13500
,9001_ i 13501-
4501- 1.00 0.75 0.59 18001-18500 0.50
5000 !9500 14000
0. 7 i 0.7 400 - iio. s s50 - ooo 0.4
5500 ~10000 14500
5501
- O. 94 10001- O. 71 14501 -
6000 10500 i15000
0.57
19001-19500
0.48
~ ~ . 10501- 15001- O. 56 9500 and
6001
.6500 ~'~! !!000 0:.~8 115500 i greate[ 0.47
6
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
MPFA calculation: The total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary
dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building is 2506 SF. The attached
garage floor area is 500 SF.
The total floor area including the attached garage:
Lot area of 8,569 SF with adjustment factor .77 per table 1'
MPFA = adjusted lot area of 6,598 SF x 0.38 FAR:
3,006 SF
6,598 SF
2,507 SF
The 3,006 SF total floor area including the attached garage exceeds the 2,507 SF
MPFA by 20% (MPFA + 25% = 3,006 SF)
H. New single farnily structures and additions to existing single family structures within
the Historic District shall not exceed the MPFA unless a Conditional Use Permit is
obtained. In no case shall the permitted fIoor area exceed 25% of the MPFA. In addition
to the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the standards noted in Section IV of the Site
Design and Use Standards shall be considered in the request.
This application is requesting a conditional use permit for exceeding the MPFA by
20%. There are four primary factors contributing to this request. They are as follows
(Note Section 5 addressing the cOncerns from the December 3,2003 Historic
Commission meeting):
1. Garage design; setback and site access limitations. The odd triangular lot
shape, access to the site, and the required garage setback from Scenic Avenue
force the following conditions: A) The garage to face Scenic Avenue; B) The garage
to be attached to the residence. Under subsection G. 1. the attached single story
garage structure is required to be included in the overall floor area. The applicant
and architect have considered other design options that would detach the garage
(pending the process of a front yard setback variance), yet argue that the final result
would be a compromise in the design and be counteractive with the intent of this
ordinance. This application presents an attached garage design that effectively
appears as a detached garage in all elevations (refer to sheets A2.1 and A2.2). With
the garage structure remaining as a garage with no living space above, the massing
on the site is inviting from Scenic Avenue and has been designed with attractive and
appropriate garage doors that give a sense of entry to the site under the forced
condition to place the garage in it proposed position (refer to West Elevation sheet
A2.1). It is the intent of the maximum permitted floor area to have a maximum
permitted square footage based on massing and scale. By virtue of the attached
garage, the overall coverage on the site is less (less than a detached garage with an
enclosed breezeway). Please refer to findings following this section that address
Historic District Development under Section IV in the Site Design and Use
Standards.
7
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
2. Overall massing and height. The lot drops off from Scenic Drive to the
buildable area an average of 15%. The garage roof ridge is approximately 8" above
the street elevation of Scenic Drive. The second story roof ridge is approximately 3
feet above the street elevation of Scenic Drive. With the development primarily
below the elevation of the street, the massing and height with respect to the street
frontage is effectively dependent on the visibility of the roof of the development. The
roof design variegates the massing by creating a series of 5 inter-relating roof planes
(refer to South Elevation sheet A2.2) with a primary hip roof at the center of the
residence.
With respect to the downhill side of the site (refer to East Elevation sheet A 2.2 and
North Elevation sheet A2.1), there is variation of scale and massing with the second
floor recessed back into the first floor (there is only one 6 -1/2 foot section of two
story wall at the exterior envelope). Also refer to site plan and observe the second
floor roof to demonstrate second story setback on all downhill slopes.
3. Conformance to Section IV {Historic District Development Standards) in
Site Design and Use Standards. The general design considerations of the project
carefully consider the following standards under this chapter:
A) Height - the residence is appropriately stepped back from the first floor roof eave
at 16 % feet to grade on the downhill slope side to a maximum height of 24 feet to
grade at the second floor roof ridge.
B) Scale - the size and proportion of the proposed residence (residential
conditioned floor area is 2,661 on a .20 acre lot) is within the scale of other existing
residences in the neighborhood:
Tax Lot # Lot Area
7500 (.23 acre)
6102 (.21 acre)
6700 (.22 acre)
100 (.21 acre)
2401 (.22 acre)
Area of Residence
2,234 SF residence
2,704 SF residence with garage attached below
3,051 SF residence with 685 SF accessory unit
2,562 SF residence
3,209 SF residence with detached garage
C) Massing - The massing (as stated previously) is broken up with variations in the
wall step backs, heights and roof planes The step back of walls and roof are
complimentary to the style and historic period of the neighborhood.
D) Setback - The combination of the setback and drop in slope from Scenic Drive
create a street setback that does not contribute nor detract from the existing street
scape.
E) Roof Shapes - The "prairie" style roof (i.e. Iow slope, large overhangs, hipped)
with its step backs complement the various roof styles of the surrounding
neighborhood.
F) Rhythm of Openings - alteration of wall area with windows and doors in all
visible facades are compatible to the style of the proposed residence. Special
consideration to the main elevation of the garage has incorporated "carriage" style
doors with glazed upper panels to mitigate the required entry doors to face the
approach to the house from Scenic Drive.
G) Platforms - The "base" of the residence is accentuated by a water table detail
and wide trim board at the floor level. The base of the building on the downward
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
slopes with be constructed with split face concrete block to break up the stemwalls
from grade to the first story level. The maximum height in these areas is 5-1/2 feet.
H) Directional Expression - The proposed residence on the odd lot shape adheres
to the contours of the site and expresses view and openness toward the view. The
design relates the vertical and horizontal facades "omnidirectional" to the other
adjacent sites and views.
I) Sense of Entry - As stated previously,due to the site conditions, the entry is the
fa(;ade of the garage. Due to the treatment of the garage doors, the entry to the
residence is strong for vehicular traffic. The design makes effort in site 'grading and
path treatment to lead people to the north side of the garage where a roofed
entrance patio leads to the entry door.
J) Imitations - The design neither replicates or imitates any particular historical
style (with exception of the roof). The design is successful in dealing with the
stringent site constraints (site access, solar access to the property to the north, site
setback standards, and hillside standards). As a result, the project successfully
addresses the site well and is of a compatible design for situating itself on the site.
The proposed detailing, quality of construction, variation of wood siding, variation of
mass and scale speak to qualities of the historic nature of the neighborhood and
ultimately enhance the overall character of the neighborhood
4. Appeal to development hardship in midst of due process in the adoption of
Land Use Ordinance limiting maximum house size in the historic district.
The applicant approached planning staff numerous times in August and September
with Land Use questions related to the site with no knowledge of the effective date of
the adoption of the house size limitations. The applicant was not made aware of the
pending adoption of the new ordinance nor of its effective date during meetings with
planning staff. It is the applicant and the architect's understanding that the
Conditional Use Permit application process is in place to address this condition
(being one of the first applications limited by the newly adopted ordinance). In
addition, these findings stated previously demonstrate the alternative strategies
(including the possibility of applying for a setback variance) to mitigate the area
exceeding the current limits, yet the solutions demonstrated are counteractive to the
intent of the ordinance.
5. Response to December 3 Historic Commission continuance:
This submittal addresses the recommendations by the Historic Commission to move
the primary entrance to the residence to give a more "prominent sense of entry" from
the Scenic Drive frontage and to reduce the total floor area by 154 SF. Refer to
plans and elevations. The proposed revision to the original submittal complies with
the above recommendation (primary entrance has been moved to be visible from
Scenic Drive access and the total floor area has been reduced by 155 SF). This has
been accomplished by reducing building lengths on the east and south side and
reduced stairwell area due to shift in the entry. Refer to revised plans, elevations
and site plan summary.
JJQI/I
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Chapter 18.61 - Tree Preservation and Protection
18.61. O10 Purpose
The City of Ashland recognizes the importance of trees to the character and beauty of
Ashland as well as the rote that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and
welfare. The City has therefore determined that reasonable regulation of the removal of
certain trees is necessary and that this regulation of trees is based upon the following
general guidelines:
A. The City recognizes that trees can provide soil stability, noise buffering, and wind
protection benefits. The City of Ashland greatly values trees for their ecological
importance, temperature mitigation, enhanced wildlife habitat and aesthetics.
B. The City recognizes the special significance of heritage and distinctive trees, and
values the contribution, which such trees make to the beauty and quality of life of
Ashland.
C. The City recognizes that because of the known benefits of trees, development
property should be protected from unregulated removal of trees prior to the approval or'
development plans. Trees on such properties should be preserved so that they may be
considered for incorporation into development plans.
D. The City recognizes that residents in single family zones should have the freedom to
determine the nature of their private landscaped surroundings.
E. The City recognizes that city-owned property and properties located in multi-family
residential zones often have special landscaping circumstances, and that these special
circumstances have the potential to affect significantly larger numbers of persons if
unregulated. Because of this, such properties require reasonable regulation.
18.61.030 Regulated Activities
A. All tree removal and tree topping activities, unless exempted below, shall be carried
out in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
Complies: One tree greater than 6" in diameter are to be removed and the removal
will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
B. No person who is required to install or maintain tree protection measures pursuant
this chapter shall do any development activities including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work on a property or site which requires a planning
action without approved tree protection measures properly installed and maintained
pursuant to this Chapter.
10
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Complies: Tree protection plan will be submitted with the building permit application
as shown on Landscape Plan L1 in this submittal. No work will begin until approved
tree protection measures have been installed.
18.61.035 Exempt Tree Removal Activities
The following activities are exempt from the requirement for tree removal permits:
A. Those activities associated with the establishment or alteration of any public park
under the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. However, the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Department shall provide an annual plan in January to the Tree Commission
outlining proposed tree removal and topping activities, and reporting on tree removal and
topping activities that were carried out in the previous year.
Not Applicable.
B. Removal of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise
regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18. 62.
Not Exempt: The Project proposes a single family dwelling. Project is additionally
regulated bythe Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance.
C. Removal of trees in multi-family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise
regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18. 62).
Not Applicable: Project is not in a multi-family residential zone. Project is subject to
regulations contained in the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (see
findings that follow).
D. Removal of trees less than 6" DBH in any zone, excluding those trees located within
the public right of way or required as conditions of approval with landscape
improvements for planning actions.
Not Applicable:
E. Removal of trees less than 18" DBH on any public school lands, Southern Oregon
University, and other public land; but excluding Heritage trees and street trees within
the public right of way.
Not Applicable: Property is not on any public school land.
F. Removal of trees within the Wildfire Lands area of the City, as defined on adopted
maps, for the purposes of wildfire fuet management, and in accord with the
requirements of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter- 18.62.
Not Applicable: Property is not within the Wildfire Lands area of Ashland
11
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
G. Removal of dead trees.
Not Applicable: No dead trees are to be removed.
H. Those activities associated with tree trimming for safety reasons, as mandated by the
Oregon Public Utilities Commission, by the City's Electric and Telecommunication Utility.
However, the Utility shall provide an annual plan to the Tree Commission outlining tree
trimming activities and reporting on tree trimming activities that were carried out in the
previous year. Tree trimming shall be done, at a minimum, by a Journeyman Tree
Trimmer, as defined by the Utility, and will be done in conformance and to comply with
OPUC regulations.
n Not Applicable: No tree trimming is proposed as part of this application.
Chapter 18.62- Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of
districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural
features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration
of, any natural environment and; to providefor sensitive development in areas that are
constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant
natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land,
natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural
and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural
vegetation.
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
18.62.050 Land Classifications
The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and
their constraints to building and development on them:
A. Flood plain Corridor Lands -Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The
following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 1 O0 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland
Municipal Code.
2. Ail land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps adopted by the
Council as provided for in section 18.62. 060.
3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the historical past.
Not Applicable: Property is not within the designated Floodplain Corridor lands.
4. Ali areas within 20feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian
12
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Preservation in 18. 62. 050. B and depicted as such on maps adopted by 'the Council as
provided for in section 18. 62. 060.
[] Not Applicable: Area of development is not within any creek designated for Riparian
Preservation.
5. All areas within ten feet (horizontal distance} of any drainage channel depicted on
maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Riparian Preservation.
Not Applicable: No drainage channels are within area of development.
B. Riparian Preservation - The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated
for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical
and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen,
Ashland, Nell and Wrights Creeks.
[] Not Applicable: Area of development is not within any Flood plain Corridor Lands.
C. Hillside Lands - Hillside Lands are lands which are subject to damage from erosion
and slope failure, and include areas which are highly visible from other portions of the
city. The following lands are classified as Hillside Lands:
1. All areas defined as Hillside Lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map and
which have a slope of 25 percent or greater.
[] Applicable: The property contains slopes that are greater than 25 percent (see Site
Plan, sheet AS1.0 with shaded areas greater than 25 percent).
D. Wildfire Lands -Lands with potential of wildfire. The following lands are classified as
Wildfire Lands:
1. All areas defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map.
[] Not Applicable: Property is not within the areas defined as wildfire lands.
E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics which
generally limit normal development. The following lands are classified as Severe
Constraint Lands:
1. Ali areas which are within the floodway channels, as defined in Chapter 15.10.
[] Not Applicable: Area of development is not within a floodway channel.
2. Alt lands with a slope greater than 35percent.
[] Applicable: The property contains slopes that are greater than 35 percent (see Site
Plan, sheet AS1.0 with shaded areas greater than 35 percent).
F. Classifications Cumulative. The above classifications are cumulative in their effect
and, ifa parcel of land falls under two or more classifications, it shall be subject to the
regulations of each classification. Those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those
13
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
portions of the land being developed and not necessarily to the whole parcel.
Applicable: Project is classified under the 'Hillside' classification.
A. The City Council shall adopt official maps denoting the above identified areas.
Substantial amendments of these maps shall be a Type 3 procedure.
B. Minor amendments of the maps to correct mapping errors when the amendments are
intended to more accurately reflect the mapping criteria contained in this chapter or in
the findings of the Council in adopting an official map may be processed as a Type 1
procedure.
18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands
Not Applicable.
18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands
n Not Applicable.
18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands
It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide
supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development
occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity
of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of
lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development
does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding
problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards
to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that
complements the natural and visual character of the city.
A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside
Lands:
1. Ali development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater
than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be
granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62. 080.H.
a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be
considered buildabte for one unit.
b. Eodsting parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be
subdivided or partitioned.
Complies: Lot was created prior to adoption of this ordinance. The lot does have
'buildable' area less than 35%. The footprint of the structure does not encroach into
the area that is greater than 35%. The majority of the structure is on a slope less
than 25%.
14
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building
envelope with a slope of 35% or less.
Not Applicable: Lot is a pre-existing lot created prior to the adoption of this
ordinance.
3. New streets, fiag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or
equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions:
a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications.
Not Applicable: Scenic Drive is an existing street. No new streets are being created.
b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does
not exceed a length of 100feet.
Complies: Proposed driveway is 62'-0" long. A small portion at the driveway
entrance is being on created on land greater than 35% slope and is necessary for
site access. (refer to Site Plan AS1.0). Retainage of soil is mitigated per
specifications provided in the Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report
by Amrhein and Associates dated 12/16/03.
4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands i n vol vi ng su bdi vi si o ns
or partitions, the following additional information is required:
Not Applicable: No subdivision or partition is proposed
B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside
shall provide plans conforming with the following items:
1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for
development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts,
grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control
measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from
disturbed areas.
Complies: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans
comply with design conclusions and recommendations as provided in the Site
Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report by Amrhein and Associates dated
12/16/03. Refer to foundation and grading plan AS1.2
2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, ail grading,
drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May I to
October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year.
Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day
modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May I date may be
15
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with
the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum
necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary
project goals.
Not Applicable: Property is a single family home on an individual lot.
3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and
subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to
25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total
project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state
shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the
functional equivalent.
For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the
total lot area shall be retained in a natural state.
The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required
here is encouraged.
Not Applicable: Property area is less than one-half acre (.20 Ac) and does not
involve a partition or subdivision.
4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following
standards shall apply:
a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which
they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation
and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or
functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary.
Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be
protected with erosion control netting or structural equivalent installed per
manufacturers specifications, and revegetated.
Complies: Cut slope angles to be retained by structural walls are to be 1/2:1 (H:V)
maximum or as determined by the geotechnical engineer at the time of excavation.
Stacked rock walls ("rockeries") will be used to retain exposed steep cuts and will be
cut to 1:6 (H:V). Cut slopes laid back are not to exceed 2:1 (H:V).
b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas,
greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall
not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three
feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall
not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15feet. (See Graphic)
Complies: Driveway cut slope is to be retained by a structural retaining wall and will
not exceed a height of seven feet on the downhill side. Cut slopes in yard areas are
to have stacked rock walls not exceeding a height of five feet and will be terraced at
the light well on the south side of the building if required.
16
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be located a minimum
setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from the nearest property line.
Cut slopes for structure foundations encouraging the reduction of effective visual bulk,
such as split pad or stepped footings shall be exempted from the height limitations of
this section. (See Graphic)
Complies: Stacked rock walls are to be located a minimum setback of one-half the
height of the cut slope.
c. Reuegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan,
introduction of top soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The
vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value
which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing
long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type
plantings may be appropriate.
Complies: Revegetation of the site in these area is proposed per Landscape Plan,
5. Grading -fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following
standards shall apply:
a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 2O feet. The toe of the fill slope
area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest
property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998)
Complies: Proposed fill slopes will not exceed 5 feet and will be greater than 6 feet
from the property line.
b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional
equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch
such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete
contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or
blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations.
Complies: Proposed fill slopes will be protected by erosion control netting.
c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill
slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall
be designed by a geotechnical expert.
Complies: Utilities will be located in permanent driveway location per Site Plan. No
utilities are proposed in fill slopes.
d. Reuegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in
resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be
provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term
viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosio'n control on disturbed
17
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
areas.
Complies: Fill slopes will utilize vegetation to meet this requirement.
6. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, ail required revegetation
of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing
authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially
established within one year of installation.
Complies: Fill slopes will utilize vegetation per Landscape Plan L1 to meet this
requirement.
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures.
a. Maintenance. Alt measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control,
including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be
maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public
rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place
to ensure maintenance of measures.
Complies: Owner agrees to maintain these features in perpetuity.
b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion
Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant
shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of
the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any ftnancial
guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the
City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at
least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works
Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the
security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the
one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not
been sufficiently stabilized against erosion.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering
the following factors:
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building
pad and f or providing vehicular access to the pad.
Complies: All terracing is proposed only for the purposes developing a level building
pad and for driveway access. Refer to Cut and Fill sheet AS 1.1 demonstrating cut
and fill calculations. All fill 44 Cu Yds on site from cuts (97.7 Cu Yds) to be utilized
to level out under floor areas. An estimate of 53.7 Cu Yds will be exported from site
to mitigate soil cuts.
b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. (Ord 2834, S2 1998)
18
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Complies: No area of site has been deemed unstable or hazardous. The proposed
location of development attempts to avoid the area of slopes greater than 35%.
Some encroachment in this area is proposed only with the required driveway access
and construction.
c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a
reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts~ swimming pools and large
lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in
the natural state of the original slope.
Complies: Building pad is approximately 2313 s.f. Design attempts to minimize the
grading of the site (approximately 57% of the site is to be retained in a natural state).
!). Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City,
signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance ora certificate of occupancy
for individual structures, the project geotechnicaI expert shall provide a final report
indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were
installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per
18. 52.080.A. 4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically
throughout the project.
Not Applicable: No subdivision is proposed.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform
to the following standards:
1. Ali facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed
on the site and according to the following requirements:
a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street
construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and
other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems.
Complies: Drainage from driveway is to be captured in a 'trench' drain at the garage
and at the bottom of the 15% and 10% slope driveway. All driveway, roof, area and
perforated drains to be tight lined to P.U.E leading, to Montview Street. City Engineer
recommends a 4" high by 16" wide asphalt berm on Montview to capture and direct
storm water down Montview Street.
b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the
greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site.
Complies: Main line to Montview Street will be installed at time of initial excavation.
All storm water will be temporarily collected and placed into this line until final hook-
up can occur.
19
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or
sloping surfaces of a fill.
Complies: Surface water is diverted away from stacked rock walls and the building
face at a slope of ¼"/foot at paved surfaces and %"/foot at landscaped areas. The
patio on the south/uphill side will also slope to an area drain on the south end of the
patio.
d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their
natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage..
Complies: The existing drainage to the down hill side of the building will remain. Any
opportunity to develop swales that lead to a drain within the P.U.E. to Montview will
be taken.
e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used
where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to
development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency oveu'low system to
safely carry any ore!flow water to an acceptable disposal point.
n Complies: Patio on uphill side has been designed to allow overflow water to go into
relief drain prior to a flood condition reaching floor level
fl Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that
will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties.
Complies: Storm water facilities will be designed and will be constructed and
maintained with an emphasis on erosion control and to prevent storm water run-off
onto adjacent properties.
g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach
fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved
by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official.
Complies: Storm water systems will be designed and will be constructed and
maintained with an emphasis on erosion control and to prevent storm water run-off
onto adjacent properties.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall
conform to the following requirements:
1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan
shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by
d.b.h, species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be
disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall
be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other)
may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number
2O
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or
minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for
the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey.
Complies: Tree inventory is shown on architectural site plan sheet AS1.0.
Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not
be included in the inventory.
Complies: Whole site was surveyed.
2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of
existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When
required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape
professional. Factors included in this determination shall include:
a. Tree healtb~ Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-
vigorous trees.
All surveyed trees (Pines and Cedars) on site are healthy though stressed from lack
of water and care.
b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result
in damage to people and property.
Not Applicable.
c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their
environment.
Pines and Cedars are very dependent on their consistent lifetime water supply,
whether wet or dry. The water regime of this hillside was altered when Scenic Drive
was installed.
d. Potential longevity.
All surveyed trees (Pines and Cedars) on site are healthy though stressed from lack
of water and care.
e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages.
All surveyed trees are a combination of Pine and Cedars.
f Size. Large trees provide a greaterprotectionfor erosion and shade than smaller trees.
None of the trees on site provide adequate protection for erosion or shade.
3. TYee Conservation in Project Design. $ignifi?ant trees (2,' d.b.l~ or greater conifers and
21
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
1' d.b.l~ or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design
whenever possible.
Applicable: Significant trees exist on this site (of special note: 30" dbh pine) All trees
shall be protected and incorporated in the design.
a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances
shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are
preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the
development is located in Wildfire Lands.
b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of
trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the
development is located in Wildfire Lands.
c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree
protection areas.
Complies: Severe site restrictions limit the location of the structure to an area that
creates no hazard to existing trees.
4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the
course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection
standards:
a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior
to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving
or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all
trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be
established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits,
the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see
graphic)
Complies: All trees to remain will be fenced at their drip line and no grading will take
place within the drip line of the trees.
b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil
compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances
within tree protection areas.
Complies: All trees to remain will be fenced at their drip line and no activities will
take place within the drip line of the trees.
c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be
permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on
the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or
construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required
to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective
measures to protect the roots.
22
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Complies: All trees to remain will be fenced at their drip line and none of these
activities will take place within the drip line of the trees. Landscape Plan L1
designates downslope trees to be protected per plan and note.
d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be
minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities
and away from trees designated for conservation.
Complies: Soil hydrology was severely impacted at the time of construction of
Scenic Street. The applicant is prepared to mitigate conditions imposed on access
to property due to the recent construction of Scenic Street. There shall be no
excessive site run-off directed towards the trees to be saved. Refer to Permanent
Erosion Control Measures (page 9) in the Geotechnical Engineering and Site
Evaluation Report by Amrhein and Associates dated 12/16/03.
e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable
damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be
revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be
relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Complies: Trees damaged during construction will be replaced with a similar stature
tree as determined by the City of Ashland Tree Commission.
5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of
trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the
development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing
authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following
conditions:(Ord 2834 S3, 1998)
Complies: Severe site restrictions limit the location of the structure yet no damage
nor removal of any tree is occurring.
a. The tree is located within the building envelope.
Not applicable. No trees exist within proposed building envelope.
b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area.
Not applicable. No trees to be removed for proposed driveway construction.
c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement.
Not Applicable: No trees are within any easements.
d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it
constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards
23
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
in 18.62.080. D. 2.
Not Applicable: No trees have been determined to be dead or diseased on this site.
e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed
threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional.
Not Applicable: No trees are within any areas of cut or fill.
6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed
because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in
compliance with the following standards:
a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan
shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting
details. (Ord 2834 S4, 1998}
NOt applicable.
b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy
equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The
canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas,
reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall
consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall
have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-
specific evidence and testimony.
Not applicable.
c. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees
that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after
which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30
days of notification unless otherudse noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998)
Complies: Owner agrees to these conditions.
7. Enforcement.
a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and
replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior
approval of the City of Ashland.
Complies: Owner agrees to these conditions.
b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been
designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current
appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times
the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is
24
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12~22~03
greater.
Complies: Owner agrees to these conditions.
c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated
for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50. OO per scar. If
necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be
required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of
appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be
used.
Complies: Owner agrees to these conditions.
E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed
for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
standards:
1. Building Envelopes. All newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition, shall
contain building envelopes conforming to the following standards:
a. The building envelope shall contain a buildable area with a slope of 35% or less.
b. Building envelopes and lot design shall address the retention of a percentage of the
lot in a natural state as required in 18.62.080. B. 3.
c. Building envelopes shall be designed and located to maximize tree conservation as
required in 18. 52. 080.D. 3. while recognizing and following the standards for fuel
reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands
d. It is recommended that building envelope locations should be located to avoid
ridgeline exposures, and designed such that the roofIine ora building within the
envelope does not project above the ridgeline.
Not Applicable: The property is a pre-existing lot. No new lot is being created.
2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive
design techniques, buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the
designated Historic District, shall incorporate the following into the building design and
indicate features on required building permits:
a. Hillside Building Height. The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from
the natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet,
mansard, or other feature perpendicular to that grade. Maximum Hillside Building
Height shall be 35feet. (graphics available on original ordinance)
Complies: The structure is 24'-0" high at the highest roof ridge and 24'-0" at the
highest second story hip roof eave These measurements are taken from the natural
grade directly below the high points of the roof. The structure is 2-stories in height
(see East Elevation on sheet A2.2).
b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk.
25
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
n Complies: Building has been cut into hillside to reduce the visual bulk (see Elevation
Sheets)
{1). Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the
structure to more closely follow the slope.
Complies: Stepped footings are incorporated in this design. There are 3 steps
relatively evenly distributed throughout the proposal - 3.5 ft., 1 ft, and 1.5 ft. This
layout closely follows the slope of the site. Refer to building section.
(2). Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope.
Complies: Building is developed close to steep slope (greater than 40% grade)
which effectively appears to be set into the hillside from the street side. Maximum
driveway slope of 15% limits the ability to set building into hillside lower than
proposed.
c. A building stepback shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20
feet in height, as measured above natural grade. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of six
feet. No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a
maximum height of 2O feet above natural grade. (see graphic}
Complies: Building has downhill walls measured to natural grade of 16'-6" on the
north end (downhill side). The second story walls are stepped back on all downhill
slopes.
d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet.
Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet. (graphic available
on original ordinance}
The downhill wall plane is broken up 26 feet to a 6 foot setback, 16 feet 4 inches
with a 10 foot setback, 14 feet 8 inches with a 17 feet setback to 14 feet 6 inch face
(refer to plans). The color and texture of the second floor siding below the window
sills is to match the base of the building and be distinct from the upper body. This
will further the sense of breaking up the wall plane.
The uphill wall plane is continuous and broken by windows setbacks in the wall
planes similar to downhill side. Also, the true uphill 'plane', as viewed from the
sidewalk, is the roof as indicated previously. The roof 'plane' is broken up by
variegation in the massing by creating a series of 5 inter-relating roof planes
e. It is recommended that roof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a
series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding
hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill
elevations should be avoided, however smaller gables may be permitted. (graphic
available on original ordinance)
n Complies: Refer to findings in previous section d.
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
f. It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor
space for upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in
excess of 12feet on downhill elevations should be avoided.
Complies: The main deck has vertical supports less than 8'.
g. It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the
predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the
structure and the natural environment
Complies: Colors will be selected to comply with these requirements and will be
presented to Staff and the subdivision's design review committee for approval.
F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by
an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer,
as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed
by an engineer.
Complies: Structural engineering for this project is to be performed by KAS and
Associates in consultation with Carlos Delgado Architect and the recommendations
of the geotechnical consultant, Amhrein Associates.
G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building
envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size
to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line
adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes.
Not Applicable: Lot is pre-existing and is not to be modified by a lot line adjustment.
Chapter 18. 68 - General Regulations
18. 68. 010 Fences
Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards:
A. In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half(3 ~) feet
in height.
Not Applicable: No fences, wall, hedges or screen planting are proposed in the front
yard.
B. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 ½)feet in
height.
Complies: No fences, hedges or screen planting are proposed in the rear or side
yards.
27
Ryan -22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12~22~03
C. The height offences or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public
street shall be forty-eight (48) inches or less if said fences or walls are within ten (1 O)
feet of any public street except an alley.
Not Applicable: No fences or walls are proposed in the rear or side yard abutting any
public street.
D. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's
property, except where fences are jointly constructed.
Not Applicable: No fences are proposed.
E. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five {5%)percent.
In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the
Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem.
The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or
on its own action.
[] Not Applicable: No fences are proposed.
18. 68. 020 Vision Clearance Area
Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing the
size of the vision clearance area:
A. In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25)feet or, at
intersections including an alley, ten (10)feet.
[] Not applicable: Proposed driveway exceeds distance to intersection.
B. In all other districts except the C-1 and E-1 districts, the minimum distance shall be
fifteen (15)feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10)feet. When the angle of
intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the
distance shall be twenty-five (25)feet.
[] Exempt: Property is in an R district.
C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or
temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding two and one-half (2 ~) feet in height,
measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be
located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight
(8) feet above the grade.
[] Complies: No plantings, fences, walls, structures, or obstructions are planned within
the vision clearance area.
D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the
Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2605, $1, 1990)
28
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
Complies: No variance is requested to the vision clearance standards.
12/22/03
18.68.030 Access
Each lot shall abut a minimum width of forty {40)feet upon a public street {other than an
alley). This requirement may be decreased to twenty-five {25)feet on a cul-de-sac vehicle
turn-around area. Except with an approved flag partition, no lot shall abut upon a street
for a width of less than twenty-five (25) feet.
Complies: Lot has 170.147' frontage on Scenic Drive.
18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on
streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual
widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof,
shall be measured from the speCial base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line
separating the lot from the street.
Street Setback
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way 35feet
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65feet
Also, front yards for proPerties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty
(20)feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district.
Not Applicable.
18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal
use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following
limitations:
A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district.
n Not Applicable: No accessory structures are proposed for this property.
B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided
there are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house.
Not Applicable: No guesthouse is proposed for this property.
C. Mechanical equipment shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. Sitch
equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street
adjacent to a front or sideyard, and every attempt shall be made to place such
equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Any installation of
mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. (Ord. 2289 S4, 1984)
29
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Complies: No mechanical equipment is to be located between the main structure on
the site and any street.
D. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential
district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3)feet for an accessory structure
erected more than fifty (50)feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure
is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10)feet or more,
and is no more than fifteen (15)feet in height. (Ord. 2228, 1982; Ord. 2289 S3, 1984)
Not Applicable: No accessory structures are proposed for this property.
18.68.1 60 Driveway Grades
Grades for new driveways in alt zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of
the driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with the criteria of the Ashland
Public Works Department and approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
new construction. If required by the City, the developer or owner shall provide
certification of driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. All vision clearance
standards associated with driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to
the Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2604 S2, 1990; Ord. 2663 S3, 1992)
Complies: Driveway grade proposed is 15%.
Chapter 18. 70 - Solar Access
18. 70. 01 0 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Solar Access Chapter is to provide protection of a reasonable amount
of sunlight from shade from structures and vegetation whenever feasible to alt parcels in
the City to preserve the economic value of solar radiation falling on structures,
investments in solar energy systems, and the options for future uses of solar energy.
18. 70. 030 Lot Classifications
Affected Properties. All lots shall meet the provisions of this Section and will be
classified according to the following formulas and table: FORMULA I:
Minimum N/ S lot dimension for Formula I = 30' 0.445 + S Where: S is the decimal value
of slope, as defined in this Chapter.
FORMIH~ 1I:
Minimum N/ S lot dimension for Formula 11 = 10' 0.445 + S Lots whose north-south lot
dimension exceeds that calculated by Formula I shall be required to meet the setback in
Section (A), below.
Not applicable: By observation, solar standard B applies to this property.
Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula I, but
3O
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
greater than that calculated by Formula II, shall be required to meet the setback in
Section (B), below.
r~ Not Applicable: Solar standard B applies to this property.
Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is tess than that calculated by Formula H
shall be required to meet the setback in Section (C), below.
Not Applicable: Solar standard B applies to this property.
18. 70. 040 Solar Setbacks
B. Setback Standard B. This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater
than sixteen (16)feet at the north property line.
Buildings for lots which are classified as Standard B, or for any lot zoned C-1, E-1 or M-
1, or for any lot not abutting a residential zone to the north, shall be set back from the
northern lot line as set forth in the following formula:
SSB = H- 16' WHERE:
SSB = the minimum distance in feet that the tallest shadow producing point which
creates the longest shadow onto the northerly property must be set back from the
northern property line.
H = the height in feet of the highest shade producing point of the structure which casts
the longest shadow beyond the northern property line.
S = the slope of the lot, as defined in this Chapter.
Not Applicable: See item B.
B. Setback Standard B. ...
Complies: By observation, solar standard B applies to this property
C. Setback Standard C. ...
a Not Applicable: See item B.
D. Exempt Lots. Any lot with a slope of greater than thirty percent {30%) in a northerly
direction, as defined by this Ordinance, shall be exempt from the effects of the Solar
Setback Section.
Not Applicable. Lot slope is not greater than 30% in a northerly direction.
E. Lots Affected By Solar Envelopes. All structures on a lot affected by a solar envelope
shall comply with the height requirements of the solar envelope.
Complies. Building is shown to comply on sheet AS1.0, Site Solar fence lines
indicated on plans. Solar elevations shown were created by projecting and
calculating the solar angle based on the contour intervals intersecting with the north
property line.
31
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
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.
Not Applicable. No existing structures exist.
2. Actual Shadow Height. If the applicant demonstrates that the actual shadow which
would be cast by the proposed structure at noon on December 21, is no higher than that
allowed for that lot by the provisions of this Section, the structure shall be approved.
Refer to Table D for actual shadow lengths.
Complies: Applicant has shown, on sheet AS1.0- Site Solar fence lines, the alternate
"Solar Limits for 16' Shadow @ Property Line" indicated by the solar elevation lines.
18. 70. 050 Solar Access Performance Standard
n Not Applicable.
18. 70. 060 Variances
r~ Not Applicable: No variances are requested for this property.
18. 70. 070 Solar Access Permit for Protection from Shading by
Vegetation
18.70. 080 Hearing Procedure
18. 70. 090 Limits On Solar Access Permits
18. 70.1 O0 Entry of Solar Access Permit Into Register
Not Applicable: No Solar Access Permit is being requested.
18.70.110 Effect and Enforcement
Chapter 18. 72 - Site Design & Use Standards
8. 72.040 Approval Process
The application for this project requires a Type ~ procedure due to the request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow exceeding the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MFPA) in the Historic District
32
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
18. 72. 050 Detail Site Review Zone
Not Applicable: The project is not within the Detail Site Review Zone.
18. 72.070 - C~teria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A~ All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
Complies: The proposed development meets or exceeds all the requirements of the R-1
district. See findings for Chapter 18.20 R-1 Single-Family Residential District of these
findings.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
Complies: All applicable requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been or will
be met. See 'Site Design and Use Standards' findings that follow.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapten
[] The development complies with the applicable Site Design Standards outlined in
Chapter 18.72 Site, Design & Use Standards. See findings that follow.
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. All improvements in the
street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18. 88,
Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6,' 1999)
[] Complies: Adequate facilities will be provided as per the following:
1. Water: The water meter will be installed within the right-of-way on Scenic Drive.
2. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewage will pass through a 4" line from the building
downhill to the existing sanitary sewer stub out on the lower southeastern portion of
the property. An existing 10' P.U.E. to Montview Street is located at this lower
eastern portion (see sheet AS1.0 Site Plan).
3. Electricity: Tie in to be to existing underground tie-in from the Scenic Drive right of
way.
4. Urban Storm Drainage: Storm drainage will be directed through tight line drain lines
to the 10' P.U.E. to daylight to Montview Street.
33
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12D2~3
18. 72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use
Standards
An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with
respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards 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 ora 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 which would alleviate the difficulty.
Not Applicable: No administrative variance is requested.
18. 72.115 - Recycling Requirements
All commercial and multi-family developments, requiring a site review as indicated in
18. 72. 040, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants.
A. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste receptacle shall provide
a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste
receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under
its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle
site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping
such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.
Not Applicable: Not a commercial development.
B. Multi-Family Residential. All newly constructed multi-family units, either as part of an
existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle
site in accord with the following standards:
1. Multi-family developments NOT sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall
provide an individual curbside recycling container for each dwelling unit in the
development.
2. Multi-family developments sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide a
site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the common solid
waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee
under its residential on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the
opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by
fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-
of-way.
Complies: Recycling containers will be made available to tenant and Owners and will
be placed within the garage.
18. 72.120 Controlled access
34
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
A. Prior to any partitioning of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-l, E-1 or M-1 zone,
controlled access standards shall be applied and, if necessary, cross easements shall
be required so that access to all properties created by the partitioning can be made from
one or more points.
Not Applicable: No partitioning is proposed with this application.
B. Access points shall be limited to the following:
1. Distance between driveways.
On arterial streets - 100feet;
on collector streets - 75feet;
on residential streets - 50feet.
2. Distance from intersections.
On arterial streets - 100feet;
on collector streets - 50feet;
on residential streets - 35feet.
Complies: Distance between existing driveways is greater than 50'.
C. Vision clearance standards.
1. No obstructions greater than two and one half feet high, nor any landscaping which
will grow greater than two and one half feet high, with the exception of trees whose
canopy heights are at all times greater than eight feet, may be placed in a vision
clearance area determined as follows:
The vision clearance area at the intersection of two streets is the triangle formed by a
line connecting points 25feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an
intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a line connecting
points ten feet along the alley and 25feet along the street. When the angle of
intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall
be 25feet. No structure or portion thereof shall be erected within ten feet of the
driveways.
n Not Applicable: No intersection of streets, or streets with alleys, occurs adjacent to
this property.
2. State of Oregon Vision Clearance Standards. The following stopping site distances
shall apply to all State Highways within the City with the prescribed speed limits.
Vertical stopping sight distance to be based on distance fiom three and one half feet
above pavement to a point six feet above the pavement. (0rd.2544 S1, 1989)
20 mph2OO feet
35 mph225 feet
40 mph275 feet
45 mph325 feet
55 mph450 feet
Not Applicable: Scenic Drive is a City of Ashland Street and is not a State Highway.
35
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
3. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the
variance section of this title. (Ord. 2505 S2, 1990}
D. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments.
1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of
250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the
development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
n Not Applicable: Project will not generate more than 250 vehicle trips per day.
2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88. 020. G, is prohibited.
(Ord. 2544 S2, 1989; Ord 2836 S7, 1999)
n Not Applicable: No streets are being created as part of this project.
18. 72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards
There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in
any other residential lot, C-1, E-1 or M-l, SO, or HC lot.
n Complies: Lighting will be shielded and located so as to limit the direct illumination
on the adjacent residential properties.
18. 72.1 60 Landscaping Maintenance
A. All landscaped areas must be maintained in a weed-free condition.
B. All landscaped areas required by this Chapter must be maintained according to the
approved landscaping plans. {Ord. 2228, 1982)
c~ Complies: Owner agrees to maintain all landscaped areas according to these
requirements.
Chapter 18.92 - Off-Street Parking
18.92. 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.
18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required
Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required.
1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following
36
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
for accessory residential units:
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.-1 space/unit.
b. 1-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. O0 spaces/unit.
2. Multi-family dwellings.
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.--1 space/unit.
b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger--1.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units-- I . 75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units--2. O0 spaces/unit.
e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater--One space per unit.
n Complies: Two parking spaces are required for the primary dwelling and are
provided for in the two-car garage.
B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required .... (portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Property is not intended or zoned for any of the Commercial Uses
indicated in this section.
C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile .... (portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Property is not intended or zoned for any of the Industrial Uses
indicated in this section.
D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses .... (portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Property is not intended or zoned for Institutional or Public Uses.
E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for .... (portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Use is specifically defined in this section.
F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces
provided by any particular use in ground surface lots 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.
n Complies: Parking provided is equal to the parking required.
18.92. 025 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking
A. The amount 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 to four credits, thereafter one space credit for each on-street parking space.
37
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Not applicable: All off street parking space requirements have been met.
B. On-street parking shall follow the established confu:juration of existing on-street
parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval of t
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:
1. Parallel parking, each 24 feet of uninterrupted curb.
Not applicable: All off street parking space requirements have been met.
2. 45 degree diagonal, each 13feet of uninterrupted curb.
Not Applicable: No 45-degree diagonal parking is proposed or exists.
C. Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the
parking.
Complies: Parking shown is contiguous with the property frontage.
D. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20feet 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.
Not Applicable: Parking shown is not adjacent to any alley or street.
E. 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 2826 S14, 1999)
Not Applicable: Parking shown is located on a residential street.
F. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200feet of a C-1-D or SO zone.
Not Applicable: Parking shown is located on a residential street.
G. On-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 public use of on-street spaces shall be permitted.
Complies.
18.92. 030 Disabled Person Parking Places
Not Applicable: Project is not commercial and therefor is not required to provide
Disabled Person Parking.
38
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands 12122/03
18.92.040 Bicycle Parking
A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-1-
D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
a Not Applicable: Project is a detached single-family residence.
B. 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 1-bedroom unit
1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit
2. 0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit
r, Not Applicable: Project contains a garage for bicycle storage.
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking
a Not Applicable: No compact car parking is proposed.
39
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
18.92.0 70 Automobile Parking Design Requirements
A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the
parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9
x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with
18. 92. 050 and shall have a 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled.
Complies: Proposed parking spaces are a minimum of 9 x 18 feet and have a back-
up space of more than 24 feet.
B. Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to
parking areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. 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 12feet.
Complies: Proposed driveway is 12'-0' wide at its narrowest dimension.
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.
n Not Applicable.
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20
feet in width and constructed to facilitate the fiow of traffic on or off the site, with due
regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked
and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12
feet in width.
Not Applicable.
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts.
a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by minor
land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway intersections with
streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. In no case
shall driveways be closer than 24feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or
proposed apron wings of the driveway approach.
Not Applicable.
b. Plans forproperty being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family developments
shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the
use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements.
Not Applicable: The property is not being partitioned, subdivided, or intended for
multi-family development.
c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway
40
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed
development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or
sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering
Division.
r~ Not Applicable: No existing curb cuts or driveway approaches currently exist to the
property.
C. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6"for their entire length and width~
Complies: This 13'-6" vertical clearance will be maintained for these areas on the
property.
D. Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet
in height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the
triangle formed by a line connecting points 25feet from the intersection of property lines.
In the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a
line connecting points ten {10}feet along the alley and 25feet along the street. When the
angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the
distance shall be 25feet. 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.
Complies: This 13'-6" vertical clearance will be maintained for these areas on the
property.
E. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided
below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
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.
n Complies: Proposed driveway paving is to be asphalt paving.
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.
Complies: One 'trench' drain will serve to collect the sheet flow of water from the
driveway. No water will flow onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way or abutting
properties.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed
to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
n Complies: Approach to conform to City standards.
41
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently
and clearly marked.
Not Applicable.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four 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 provided where appropriate for all spaces
abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public
right-of-way.
Not Applicable: No wheel stops are proposed.
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wail or evergreen he_dge
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 line shall be landscaped. All
vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent 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.
Not Applicable: No parking abuts upon a street. Proposed parking is on street and
within the garage.
b. In ali zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities ...(portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Zoned single-family.
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not
less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping
required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed
throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or
raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related
material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required.
Complies: The existing parking area and backup space (on subject property)
comprises approximately 1170 s.f. of surface area. This requires, at 7%, an area of
landscaping totaling 82 s.f. This area is more than accommodated in the adjacent
landscaped areas.
8. Lighting of parking areas within 100feet of property in residential zones shall be
directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element
shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property.
42
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Complies: A shielded garage light will direct light downward.' Two Iow wall lights will
be inset into the retaining wall on the uphill side of the site facing the driveway and
will be Iow voltage lighting.
Chapter 18. 104 - Conditional Use Permits
18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally
Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter
provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits
are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use
may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
This Conditional Use Permit application for allowing exceeding the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MFPA) in the Historic District (Section 18.24.040 K.)
18.104.030 Procedure
An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the
subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied
by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the
requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter
18.108 of this Title.
18.104.040 Plan Requirements
A. The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following
information:
1. Vicinity map.
2. North arrow.
3. Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property.
4. Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of all lot lines.
5. Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and
schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures.
6. Location of all parking areas, parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic
circulation for the subject property.
7. Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed.
8. A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or less.
9. Approximate location of alt existing natural features in areas which are planned to be
disturbed, including, but not limited to, alt existing trees of greater than six inch dbh,
any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of
rocks or boulders.
Complies: See drawings provided with this submittal.
B. An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently
43
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18. 72. The
provisions of paragraph (1} above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan
requirements of Section 18. 72,. 040for site design approval.
This request for a Conditional Use Permit application for allowing exceeding the
Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MFPA) in the Historic District (Section 18.24.040 K.)
is being submitted concurrently with a request for review of conformance to the
Development Standards for Hillside Lands pursuant to Section 18.62.080.
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority ]inds that the
proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions,
with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law
or program.
Complies: The proposed use is in conformance with all standards within the R-1-7.5
zoning district.
B. 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.
Complies: Adequate capacity of City facilities exist as declared in section 18.72.050
D. of the Site Design and Use section of these findings.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability
of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the
target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
Complies: The floor area is compatible with the typical residences in this
neighborhood. Refer to findings under Chapter 18.20.040.H. in these findings.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
Complies: The existing street is approximately 20'-0" wide. This development of a
single family residence is an intended use off of Scenic Drive and is close within
· Ashland Street standards defining a 'Residential Neighborhood Street, Parallel
Parking One Side' as requiring 22' of pavement. Given the density and lot sizes of
44
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
adjacent properties, and the non-requirement for on street credits for this
development, no further impact on street parking is incurred.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
Complies: The residence has been designed in a style complementary to some of
the surrounding homes. From the street side, the house has a 'cottage' look and is
Iow and predominately horizontal. The house nestles as much as practical into the
hillside. The applicant believes that the house conforms to the requirements of all
ordinances that regulate the design of the home, in particular the 'Hillside' ordinance.
The findings contained herein and under Chapter 18.20.040.H.describe the criteria
and how this criteria is being met.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
ri Complies: Air quality will not be impacted, except during construction, to any greater
extent by the addition of this accessory unit, than by a single-family residence.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
Complies: Noise, light, and glare will not be increased to any greater extent by the
addition of this accessory unit, than by a single-family residence. Entry lights for the
accessory unit will be located under the veranda in the two foot far~de setback and
therefor will have minimal impact on the adjacent neighbors.
The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Complies: Future development of adjacent properties will be of like nature in
response to site conditions and use.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
18.104.060 Conditions
The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to
the following:
A. Regulation and limitation of uses.
B. Special yards, spaces.
C. Fences and walls.
D. Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets and sidewalks and
bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such
improvements.
E. Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress.
F. Regulation of signs.
G. Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features.
H. Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase
compatibility with adjoining uses.
45
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12D2~3
L Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances.
J. Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities.
K. The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed.
L. Duration of use.
M. Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space.
N. Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design.
0. Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly
and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title.
18.104.070 Revocation; Abandonment
Unless a longer period is specifically allowed by the approval authority, any conditional
use permit approved under this section, including any declared phase, shall be deemed
revoked if the proposed use or phase is not commenced within one year of the date of
approval. A use or phase shall not be considered commenced until the permittee has
actually obtained a building permit and commenced construction or has actually
commenced the conditional use on the premises. If the permit requires site design
approval under Chapter 18. 72, the permit shall be deemed revoked if the use or phase is
not developed within one year of the date of site design approval. A conditional use is
deemed void if discontinued or abandoned for a period of six consecutive months. (Ord.
2228, 1982; Ord. 2656, 1991; Ord. 2775. 1996)
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION II- APPROVAL STANDARDS & POLICIES
A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the
Site Design and Use Standards.
R-l: 45%
c~ Complies: The total pervious natural and landscaped area equals 4,876 s.f. on-site,
or 57% of lot area. This exceeds the 45% requirement for R-1 zones.
B. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL STANDARDS: Multi-family residential development shall conform to the
following design standards:
Not Applicable: This development is not a multi-family residential development.
D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS
II-D-l) Screening at Required Yards
II-D-l-I} Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate
a sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard.
46
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
Complies: The retaining wall on the south side of the parking area is approximately 3
feet in height at the Garage. This wall, in conjunction with the plantings above,
serve to obscure the parking/driveway in conformance with this requirement.
II-D-I-2} The screen shall grow to at least 35 inches higher than the finished grade of the
parking area, except for required vision clearance areas.
Not Applicable: Retaining wall serves as screen.
II-D-I-3} The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and
plant materials.
Not Applicable.
II-D-I-4} Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining wall.
Not Applicable: Driveway is sunken, not elevated.
H-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines
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.
Not Applicable: No parking abuts a property line.
II-D-3) Landscape Standards
II-D-3-1) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7 % of the total parking
area plus a ratio of I tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect.
Not Applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3-2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be
selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and
damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians.
Not Applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3-3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least
2feet from any curb or paved area.
Not Applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3~4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover
to assure 50% coverage within I year and 90% within 5 years.
[] Complies: The landscape has been designed to meet this requirement.
47
,Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
H-D-3-5) Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and
parking perimeter at the required ratio.
Complies: Landscape areas are on two sides of the proposed driveway.
II-D-3-6) 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 landscaping required for
interior parking stalls.
Complies: Landscape areas are counted toward required parking lot landscaping.
II-D-4-1) Parking areas adjacent to residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8feet
from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen.
Complies: On-street parking is greater than twenty feet from the building. Two
spaces are contained within the enclosed garage.
II-D-5) Hedge Screening
II-D-5-1) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is
achieved within 2 years, 100% within 4 years.
Complies: The landscape hedge screening is evergreen and has been designed to
meet this requirement.
II-D-5-2) Living groundcouer in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100% coverage
is achieved within 2 years.
Complies: The landscape living groundcover has been designed to meet this
requirement.
II-D-6) Other Screening
II-D-6-1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follow:
Refuse Container Screen, Service Corridor Screen, Light and Glare Screen:
Not Applicable: Refuse containers will be located within the garage.
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: Alt development 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
48
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
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 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers,
and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of
Community Development.
Complies: Two existing street trees are located behind the sidewalk in the right-of-
way. Existing trees are to be irrigated.
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 safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition
shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement,
spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows:
Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30feet of street
frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing
permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches.
n
Complies: Two existing street trees along the frontage are spaced 62' apart (170'
feet of Scenic Drive street frontage (170/30=6). The applicant agrees to plant 4
additional trees accordingly to this ordinance chosen from the approved Street Tree
list.
Trees shall not be planted closer than 25feet from the curb line of
intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than lO feet from private
driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or
utility poles.
f.
Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20feet to light standards.
Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned
closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such
locations will be at least 20feet distant.
~rees shall not be planted closer than 2 %feet from the face of the curb
except at intersections where it shall be 5feet from the curb, in a curb
return area.
Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that
will not interfere with those lines.
Trees shall not be planted within 2feet of any permanent hard surface
paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least
10 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow
49
,, Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Site Review - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
12/22/03
additional air and water into the root 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 8feet of clearance
above sidewalks and 12feet above street roadway surfaces.
Complies: Applicant agrees to comply per landscaping plan.
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.
Complies: Location of existing trees is such that no intense construction will occur
around the trees.
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
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.
Complies: Owner agrees to replace any street trees removed or damaged during the
course of construction in accordance with this section.
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree
Commission.
Complies: The proposed street trees have been selected from the street tree list.
SECTION III- WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES &
POLICIES
Complies: Owner agrees to select plants to drought tolerant. Also, the proposed
irrigation for this project is to be designed to minimize inefficient use of water and will
be reviewed.
50
December 20, 2003
To: Ashland Historic Commission Members
We, the adjacent neighbors of 22 Scenic Drive request that you examine this lot not only from Scenic Drive, but
from the junction of Granite and Montview streets where the back (or east) side of the proposed house will have a
detrimental impact on the ambience of this historic neighborhood. Montview Street (unlabeled) is the small street
off Granite Street between the Lithia Rose B&B and the Parkside Lodging, opposite the entrance to Lithia Park at
the Band Shell.
When you stand at Granite and Montview and look west you will see a wire fence which marks the property line
for T. Michael Ryan's proposed spec house. This fence is six feet high and can be easily seen from its base to its
top. Ten feet up the steep hill from this fence will be the foundation for Mr. Ryan's spec house (five feet of gray
cement block). Because of the steep rise of the hill it will appear even more prominent. On top of this five foot
foundation will rise a ten foot back wall of the house stretching the entire width of the property. This will tower
over the historic homes on Granite Street.
Please walk up Montview and then walk onto the empty lot directly above the Lithia Rose B & B. This is 165
Granite Street and borders the east side of 22 Scenic Drive. From here you can easily access the property at 22
Scenic Drive and evaluate the effect of a house that covers all of the lot except for setbacks of six feet on the
south and north side and ten feet on the east side.
By inspecting the property in this fashion you will also see all the undeveloped property in this area which will be
subdivided eventually. If houses built in this area are allowed to cover almost their entire lot and request a 25%
Conditional Use Permit to increase square footage it will certainly alter the historic ambience of Granite Street,
since the houses will be closer than even mOst tract homes are. It will also set precedence for any future building
in this historic neighborhood.
The map that we submitted to the first meeting of the Historic Commission on December 3, 2003 detailing the
properties and the footprint of all the houses on them is the official map of Jackson County. The building outlines
are drawn to scale and verified by Mr. Keith Massie, Manager, GIS Services of Jackson County that they do
represent the size and placement of buildings on the property. Please look at the house/lot ratios of houses on the
attached Jackson County map. On one of the smallest lots in this area (see second attachment), Mr. Ryan's spec
house will be the third largest house.
We would like to see a house built at 22 Scenic Drive whose mass is in keeping with the size of the lot and whose
very visible back favade is reasonably compatible with the houses on Granite Street. When people have built
recently in this .area, they have improved the historic ambience. Hopefully Mr. Ryan will build a house that
would continue this desirable trend.
Respectfully submitted,
Frances Sharkey, 163 Granite Street, and 165 C. mmi~ Street, which borders thc east side of 22 Scenic.
Exhibit I
Area Development Map
~7~1
·
N
1"= 105'
J
,/
Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, LLC Objections to Planning Action 2003-150
Existing Development Around the Proposed T. Michael Ryan Residence;
Planning Action 2003-150
Table 1
R-1-7.5 District~
39, 1E, Lot Area Structures MPFA Existing FAR
08AD Yr Bit Sq Ft %
Tax Lot #
5400 35,719 '26/'80 3310 6379 9.3
5401 25,700 '85 3397 4590 13.2
5600 21,344 '00/'20 1529 3812 7.2
5700 10,018 '71 2496 2702 24.9
5701 15,246 '68 3072 3244 20.1
6000 20,473 '09 2800 3656 13.7 ..
6101 9,147 - - 2606
'6102 9,147 '78 2704 2606 29.6
6200 16,117 '35 2489 3307 15.4
6300 7,405 '61 1244 2391 16.7
7000 9,147 - , 2606 -
7100 7,840 '30 1056 2442 13.4
7300 56,628 '53 2485 10113 4.3
7400 11.325 '12 2407 2840 21.2
7500 10,018 '38 2234 2702 22.2
7600 6,969 '50 1274 2330 18.2
7700 7,405 - _ 3391 -
Table 2
R-2 District=
39, 1E, Lot Area Structures MPFA Existing FAR
08AD Yr Bit Sq Ft
6400 10,890 '50 2261 .2813 20.7
6500 7,405 '75 1080 2391 14.5
6600 6534 '51 1378 21 64 21.0
*6700 9583 '27/'27 3736 2658 38.9
6800 13068 1900 1935 2979 14.8
6900 8712 '12 1540 2549 17.6
* Tax Lots 6102 and 6700 currently exceed the MPFA.
** Tax Lot 7401 is the subject property.
~ Tax Lot 7200 has between 10 and 20 apartments, and square footage numbers on this development were
not available in the time available.
2 Tax Lots 7800 & 7900 are Bed and Breakfasts, and the square footage numbers on these structures were
not available in the time available.
Laurel Praide-Kuntz, LLC
Objections to Planning Action 2003-150
Page 2 of 3
To: The Ashland Historic Commission
From: Chris Wood
121 Strawberry Lane
Re: Planning Action 200~-150
Conditional Use Permit for T. Michael Ryan
December 3, 2003
Dear Commissioners,
I ask that you deny Mr. Ryan's request for a conditional use permit. Our community has
wisely chosen to protect the Historic District from disproportionate homes. Since 1977,
I've lived next to Mr. Ryan's lot in a house of 1400 square feet. In this neighborhood
there is a tradition and a need for homes of moderate size.
To achieve the proposed square footage, the design leaves practically no yard on the
north, east and south sides. No home in the area crowds three of its four lines to the
allowable limit.
More importantly, I am concerned that an elastic interpretation of the Maximum Area
Ordinance will bring an endless supply of applicants to negotiate before the Historic
Commission, Planning Commission, and the public. We've seen how rancorous the
public debate becomes. The effect on neighborhood relations can be lasting, and not for
the better.
By applying a good ordinance consistently, the Commission serves neighborhoods in
many ways.
Sincerely,
DEC 1 2003
Z
32.97'
00' 33' 64' E
/ / Iz
SIDE YARD
ASHLAND OR 97520 545AStreet oA~hland Oregon 97520
" ~ ASSESSO--~ ~ ~'~ L-"~-NO. 7401 541.552.9502 541.552.9512 fax
carlosQmlnd.net
II
® /
!
/
I
I
Z
IJJ
Z
m
o~
.-I
m
z
PROI~RW UNE
NEW RESIDENCE
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
22 SCENIC DR.
ASHLAND OR 97520 .
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. 391E 08 AD TAX LOT NO. 7401
545 A Street .Ashland Oregon 97520
.................................. 541.552.9502 541.552.9512 fax
......................................................................................................... oarlos~mlnd.net
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
Z
I I
I I
I. Oi, Z 'ON 10'1 X¥1 aY gO g 1.8£ 'ON dVl/~l g,~Ogg::l~gV
0~gz6 I:10 ONV'IHSY
'~00IN~O$ ~'~
NOLL¥OI'IddV J.II/ll:J:ld ~ggl'l 'lVNowaNoo
RONROIS~I AARN
/
/
z
z
0
u.I
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
January 13, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER,
1175 East Main Street; Ashland, Oregon.
is based o~ also preciudes your right of appeal to LUBA on that crtterton. Failure of the
action for damages In circuit court.
A copy of the applica~ . documents and evidence relied upon by the apl~licant and
.applicable c:iteria are available for inspection at no cost and will .be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be avai~ble for inspection
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development
and Engineering Sep~tces, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
in atter~ance concerning this request. The Chair shah have the light to limit the length
the record shall remain open for at least seven days aft. m- the hearing. If you have
questions or comments cortceming Ibis request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates
at the Ashland Planning Depadmert 541-552-2041. Our TrY phone number is 1-800-
N
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on January 7, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Winbum Way. '
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on January 8, 2004 in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winbum Way
at 6:00 p.m.
· PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 is a request for site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct multi-
floor, 8,325 square foot mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is
requested to permit"development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 9800.
APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines
SITE REVIEW
18.72.50
Cdteria for Approval. The following criteda 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.
De
All requirements Of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
The site design complies witl~ the guidelines adopted by the
City Council for the implementation of this'~hapter.
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)
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONsTRAiNTS PERMIT CRITERIA
1'8.62.O40 AI)l)roval and Permit Require~
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 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 Us.e Ordinance.
SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit.
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a
permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is
likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that
is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or
private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the
damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of
the tree presents a clear public safety hazard, or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
'alleviated by treatment or pruning.
The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g.
other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the
building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification
of the permit -application; and
Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance.
The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a
condition of approval of the permit.
(Ord 2883, Added, 06/04/2002)
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR )
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW )
WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR, A )
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND SITE )
REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A )
NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON LAND )
IN DOWNTOWN ASHLAND LOCATED )
ALONG ASHLAND CREEK AND NORTH )
OFF NORTH MAIN STREET AND WEST )
OF WATER STREET IN THE CITY OF )
ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON )
)
)
Lloyd Haines: Applicant
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Applicant's Exhibit 1
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION; ADDITIONAL PLANS
The subject land use applications are submitted by applicant Lloyd Haines. The applications
are for the purpose of permitting the construction of a three story, mixed use, building in
downtown Ashland along Ashland Creek. The proposed development is within the C-1
Retail Commercial District and has a Downtown Overlay District designation (C-l-D).
Development within the C-1-D district is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site
Design and Use Standards. Additionally, development is located within the floodplain of
Ashland Creek and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of Ashland Land Ordinance
(ALUO) Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review with respect to flood plain and riparian
protection.
If approved, applicant proposes to construct a new building which will house a restaurant,
retail and office space and two residential apartments. The apartments are intended to be on
the upper-most floor. Applicant has engaged the expert assistance of Dave Richardson,
Architectural Design Works Inc. to undertake architectural and site design for the project.
Architect Richardson and his staff and consultants have prepared a detailed site design plan
and exterior elevations. Applicant's landscape architect, John Galbraith, Galbraith &
Associates Inc. have prepared a landscape plan and applicant's engineer, Greg Weston, Otak
Inc., has prepared a flood hazard assessment report and letter which addresses flood related
standards in ALUO 18.62. Mr. Weston also participated fully in the architectural design of
the project. Applicant's plans are included as Exhibit 2.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Ur'la ,L ~ /..UU3 Page 1
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Applicant's Intentions, Not A Part of this Application: As additional mitigation for the
proposed removal of a tree on the site, applicant proposes the creation of a tree sculpture,
along with various benches, from the tnmk of the Alder to be removed from the property.
Russell Beebe, a local artist skilled in the creation of sculpture and furniture will be retained
at applicant's expense to create the sculpture and furniture. Exhibit 12 is a photograph
showing a sample of Mr. Beebe's work and an accompanying newspaper article.
If Ashland elects to create a park under the Lithia Way viaduct (on land owned by the state,
but under Ashland's control) applicant suggests that an Art Park be created. The underside of
the viaduct would be an appropriate canvas for murals or other works of art, the creation of
which would be supervised by the City through its Parks Department or Arts Commission. If
this proposal is attractive to the city, applicant will provide the sculpture and fumiture at no
municipal cost or expense.
Additionally, applicant suggests that the city create a walkway which begins on Main Street
adjacent and north of the building proposed in this application. This too is state-owned
property, which consists of a sliver of right-of-way at the intersection of Lithia Way and
North Main Street. This area would be the entrance to the "Ashland Creek Walk" which
would wind down towards the creek and under the viaduct. It would traverse through the
proposed Art Park and would connect with the pathway along Ashland Creek which winds
through Bluebird Park and terminates at Main Street. Thus, there would be a continuous
walkway which would start and terminate at either end of the city block in which the
proposed new building is to be located. Building elevations which are part of Exhibit 2,
show a proposed archway from North Main Street which demarks the beginning of the
walkway.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION
Applicant herewith submits the following evidence with and in support of its applications for
Site Design and Use Review and Physical Constraints Review permit:
Exhibit 1.
The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (this document),
demonstrating how the application complies with the applicable substantive
criteria of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) as hereinbelow enumerated
Exhibit 2. Project Plans which include the following:
Architectural
A-101
A-102
A-103
A-104
A-105
Site Plan
City of Ashland Floodplain
FEMA Flood Data
City of Ashland Flood Overall Location
Surveyors Existing Topography Map (Existing Site Plan)
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 2
1 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 7.
Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 9.
A-106 Floor Plan
A-201 Exterior Elevations
A-301 Building Sections
Color Board
Tree Preservation Plan
Planting Plan
Letter and Tree Removal Application by John Galbraith, ASLA, Registered
Landscape Architect, dated December 3, 2003
Flood Hazard Assessment by OTAK Inc. Dated November 12, 2003
Letter by Greg Weston, OTAK Inc. dated December 5, 2003
Surrounding Area Photographs and Photographic Key Map
Assessor Plat of the Subject Property
Exhibit 10. City of Ashland Overlay and Special Design District Maps:
· Design Standards Boundary
· Historic District
· Detail Site Review Zone
Exhibit 11. Letter by Tom Myers, Upper Limb-it Tree Service, Certified Arborist, dated
September 3, 2003, and including two-page Tree Hazard Evaluation Form
Exhibit 12. Photograph of Tree Sculpture and newspaper article describing same
Exhibit 13. Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation (October 13, 1997) page 18
Exhibit 14. Completed Land Use Application Form and Power of Attorney
III
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA
The Planning Commission has determined that the below relevant substantive criteria
constitute all of those which are prerequisite to approving the proposed Physical Constraints
Review permit, Tree Removal permit and Site Design and Use Review permit. A recitation
of the relevant standards and criteria in the Physical and Environmental Constraints, Tree
Removal and Site Design and Use Standards are contained in Section V of this document. In
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
Decarnber 12, 2003
Page 3
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Section V, each relevant standard or criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are
followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the Planning Commission.
The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in
Section IV and the evidence enumerated in Section II.
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC))
ALUO Chapter 18.62 Physical Constraints Review Permit
ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff
Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the
property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
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.
ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. For all land use actions which
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 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 imported fill material.
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.
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.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 4
DEC 1 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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.
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 are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075.
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 floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Nell
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.
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 of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear,
or Nell 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.
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
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.
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 finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations.
All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor
land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which 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.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 5
D£C 1 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood
plain Corridor lands.
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.
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.
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:
Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of
development following the adopted Nodh 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.
ALUO 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands.
A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall
comply with the following standards.
1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070)
2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
3. Fill and Culveding shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right
angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained.
SITE REVIEW
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards
ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone,
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section
18.72.040(A).
Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant
to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be
reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross
square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or
contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
DEC,
Page 6
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or
combined contiguous building length, as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized
in the Land Use Ordinance.
ALUO 18.72,070 Criteria for Approval.
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
^. 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.
¢. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation
of this Chapter.
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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991' Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION I1: APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES
II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
II-C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
II-C-1, BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
II-C-la) Orientation and Scale
II-C-lb) Streetscape
II-C-lc) Landscaping
II-C-ld) Parking
II-C-le) Designated Creek Protection
II-C-lf) Noise and Glare
II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW
II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
II-C-2b) Streetscape
lI-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation
II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening
II-C-2e) Lighting
II-C-2f) Building Materials
II-D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS
II-D-6. OTHER SCREENING
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.
Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses ....
Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not
produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets.
II-E. STREET
II-E-l)
II-E-2)
II-E-3)
TREE STANDARDS
Location for Street Trees
Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
Replacement of Street Trees
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
~.w -,- ..... Page 7
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
VI-C. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
Height
· Scale
· Massing
· Setback
· Roof Shapes
· Rhythm of Openings
· Platforms
· Directional Expression
· Sense of Entry
,, Imitations
SECTION Vh
VI-l)
VI-2)
DOWNTOWN ASHLAND
VI-3)
VP4)
Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited.
Pedestrian amenities such as a broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes,
awnings and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible.
Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new development.
Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk.
Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited.
VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial,
residential, or parking areas.
w-6)
Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and
tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as
Conditional Use permits, to deny new uses. Although improvements to existing facilities may be
permitted.
SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS. The following standards are adopted with this plan and
shall be used as part of the land use approval process.
VI-A) Height
VI-B) Openings
VI-C) Width
VI-D) Openings
VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms
VI-F) Vertical Rhythms
VI-G) Roof Forms
VI-H) Materials
VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters
VI-J) Other
VI-K) Exception to Standards
TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
ALUO Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation & Protection
ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-
Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an
arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 8
DEC i 003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
ALUO 18.61.080(B) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the applicant to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use
Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow
for accurate verification of the permit application; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
4. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and
species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternative landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long
as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
IV
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission reaches the following facts and finds them to be tree with respect
to this matter:
Property Description; Ownership: The owner of record is 88 North Main, LLC.
Applicant Haines is a member of 88 North Main, LLC. Thc legal description of the
subject property, according to thc records of the Jackson County Assessor, is Tax Lot
9800 on map 39-1E-09BB. The shape and configuration of the property is shown on thc
Assessor's Plat Map (Exhibit 9).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning District: The subject property is
designated Downtown on thc City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. Thc property is
within a Retail Commercial (C-l) zoning district and subject to thc City's Downtown
Overlay District (D); the overall zoning designation of the property is denoted as C-I-D.
Thc property is within Ashland's Commercial North Main Historic District.
Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with urban
public facilities and services, including municipal water, sanitary sewer service,
municipal electrical service, natural gas, and transportation facilities, which accommodate
the movement of motorized vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to and through the subject
property. Representatives of applicant interviewed representatives of the Ashland
Engineering Department. According to Engineering Department representatives, the
municipal infrastructure which serves this property, is sufficient for thc proposed
development and contemplated land uses. However, connection to sanitary sewer and
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page 9
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
water lines within North Main Street will require a permit through the State of Oregon for
the purpose of cutting the pavement to connect the underground infrastructure to the
proposed new building. Storm water mn off will be diverted directly to Ashland Creek
which is adjacent to the subject property. According to representatives of the Ashland
Engineering Department, there appear to be no existing conditions that would limit the
ability to discharge storm water to the creek.
e
Nature of the Proposed Use: The development includes the construction of a mixed use
building with an under-floor area, realignment and replacement of the existing pedestrian
bridge over Ashland Creek. Following is a detailed description of the proposed uses.
· Mixed Use Building
Underfloor. The underfloor will be used for storage and for the elevator foundation.
The underfloor will also be used to store flood waters during significant flood events,
in accordance with the regulations of Ashland and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). By definition the underfloor of this building is not
considered habitable and therefore is not consider a "floor" under the ordinary
meaning of this term. Habitable Floor is defined in the Ashland Municipal Code
subsection 15.10.050(J) as follows:
"Habitable Floor means any floor usable for living purposes, which includes
working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. A floor
used only for storage purposes is not a "habitable" floor."
The Underfloor elevation is below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) adopted by the
City of Ashland and below the FEMA BFE. The underfloor will be of flow through
construction to accommodate floodwaters (during major flood events) and minimize
potential flood damage. See, Exhibit 2, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and
Building Sections Sheet A-301. Any electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and
mechanical equipment to be located within this area will be flood-proofed or elevated
sufficiently to prevent flood waters from entering or accumulating within these
components. New decking will be constructed along the east side of the proposed
new building and adjacent to the existing Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. The existing
deck cover over a portion of the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill outdoor seating and
dining area will be removed. A decorative metal guardrail will be installed at the
north end of the new deck on the Ashland Creek side.
Level 1 Lower Floor. A restaurant will be located on this floor. The restaurant will
include indoor dining, a kitchen, restrooms and entry/exit to the proposed Ashland
Creek Walkway.' On this floor is a planned outdoor dining and deck area which is to
be accessed from a central reception area. The indoor dining area is to be adjacent to
' As earlier described, the proposed walkway is to be on land with ODOT right-of-way and this component will
be dealt with as a matter separate from this application.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 10
1 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
the outdoor dining area and have views to Ashland Creek. An outdoor reception area,
accessed by a stairway from North Main Street, will be located between the existing
Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and the proposed new building. See, Exhibit 2, Floor
Plan Sheet A-106. The lower floor elevation is at 1,877 feet, which is 1.50 feet above
the Ashland BFE and 5.00 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Exhibit 2, Exterior
Elevations Sheet A-201 and Building Sections Sheet A-301.
Level 2 Main Floor. Space for retail shops and office suites will be located on this
floor, which has access directly from North Main Street. See, Exhibit 2, Floor Plan
Sheet A-106. The main floor elevation is measured at 1,888.50 feet. The main floor
is 13.00 feet above the Ashland BFE and 16.50 feet above the FEMA BFE. See,
Exhibit 2, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and Building Sections Sheet A-301.
Level 3 Upper Floor. Two residential apartments are proposed to be located on the
this upper floor. The apartments will be 2 bedroom units with full kitchens. See,
Exhibit 2, Floor Plan Sheet A-106. The upper floor elevation is measured at 1,900.50
feet. The upper floor is 25.00 feet above the Ashland BFE and 28.50 feet above the
FEMA BFE. See, Exhibit 2, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and Building Sections
Sheet A-301.
Building Square Footage Breakdown: The following Table 1 is a statistical
breakdown of the proposed development.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
DEC 1 2003
Page 11
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Table 1
Building/Site Square Footage Breakdown
Source: Dave Richardson, Ashland Design Works
Site Area 4,201 100%
Coverage
New Building (Including Decks) 3,461 82.39%
Landscape Coverage (Including Creek) 740~ 17.61%~
Landscaping Required 0 0%
Parking~ 02 0%2
New Building Enclosed Areas
Lower Floor (Shell) 1,970
Main Floor (Shell) 2,906
Upper Floor (Finished) 3,449
Total New Building Enclosed Area 8,325
New Building Unenclosed Areas
Lower Floor 899
Main Floor 474
Upper Floor 173
Total New Building Unenclosed Areas 1,5457
Residential Uses
Allowed Density 60/acre 5.79 units allowed
Actual number of units 2 units3
Table Notes:
1. Landscaped area figure does not include additional landscaping to be provided on the property located
on either side of the new bridge.
2. ALUO 18.32.050(A) provides that land within the "D" Downtown Overlay District is not required to provide
off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotels, motels or hostel uses.
3.
Residential units will both have two bedrooms
Pedestrian Bridge: There is an existing pedestrian bridge which now permits people
to cross over Ashland Creek by foot in order to access the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill.
The existing bridge is proposed to be replaced and slightly realigned to meet Ashland
design and floodplain standards. The proposed bridge has been designed so that it can
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 12
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
be raised (drawn-up) during periods of flooding to an elevation which is above the
100-year water surface during large flow events. The bridge is to be designed by a
qualified engineer. See, Exhibit 2, Site Plan, and applicant's stipulations in Section
VI.
e
e
Proposed Method of Heating, Cooling and Lighting: At this time, applicant proposes
to use electricity for heating and cooling throughout the building. However, applicant
may later determine that a combination of electric and natural gas is more beneficial for
the proposed uses. The method of heating, cooling and lighting will be finally determined
at the time construction drawings are submitted for building permits.
Existing Land Use (Subject Property): The site is presently developed as an outdoor
seating and dining area for the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill restaurant. The existing
restaurant has indoor as well as outdoor dining areas. That portion of the outdoor dining
area which is adjacent to the existing building, is covered by a canopy that is attached to
the existing building; this area will remain and be available for outdoor dining for the
Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. The remainder of the existing outdoor seating and dining
area is of wood decking which is not covered by any structure and which is intended as
the site of the new building. As above mentioned, there is a wood pedestrian bridge
which crosses Ashland Creek and connects the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill to a paved
parking area located on the north side of Ashland Creek (and beneath the Lithia Way
viaduct).
Surrounding Area Development: Photographs of the surrounding area and existing
development are in Exhibit 8, which includes a photograph key map that shows the
station points for each photo and the direction each was taken. All buildings on the same
block as the subject property, the proposed building and buildings across North Main
Street, all have fiat roofs.
Characteristics of Surrounding Potential Impact Area: The physical characteristics of
the surrounding potential impact area arc graphically depicted in photographs. See,
Exhibit 8.
e
Floodplain Corridor: The subject property is within the floodplain corridor. The Base
Flood Elevation (BFE) adopted by FEMA is at 1,872.00 feet. The BFE adopted by thc
City of Ashland is at 1,875.50 feet. The proposed project has been designed to maintain
or increase flood storage volumes at current levels. Applicant's engineers at OTAK Inc.,
have prepared a flood hazard assessment which has been included as Exhibit 6.
10. Riparian Preservation: The proposed development is adjacent to Ashland Creek and is
designated as Flood Plain Corridor Lands. As such, the subject property and project are
also designated for Riparian Preservation and subject to the standards of the ALUO
18.62.075 which deal with riparian areas.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
2003
Page13
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
11. Timeline for Development: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.040(H)(1)(t) applicant herewith
testifies that, assuming these applications are approved in February 2004, that project
development will proceed according to the following approximate task milestones, each
of which has an approximate completion date attached:
· June 2004: Preparation of architectural working drawings and contract documents;
submittal to city for building permits; contractor selection
· August 2004: Approval of plans and issuance of building permits
· September 2004: Start of construction
· June 2004: Construction completed
· July 2004: Issuance ora Certificate of Occupancy by City of Ashland
V
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Planning Commission reaches the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions
under each of the relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the
standard, criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set
forth in Section IV hereinabove and by the evidence enumerated in Section II:
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18)
ALUO CHAPTER 62 PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRAINTS
ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff
Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
Criterion I
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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the development standards
of "this chapter" are the standards and criteria addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 4 through
22, the findings of fact and conclusions of law for which are herewith incorporated and
adopted. These demonstrate that the development standards of ALUO Chapter 18.62
(including the standards in the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards) have been properly
observed. The Commission also concludes that the potential impacts to the subject property
and nearby areas consist of: 1) the potential to increase flooding and flood damage up and
downstream, 2) the potential damage to the riparian corridor and riparian vegetation and its
related impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. On these categories of potential impact, the
Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 14
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon Exhibits 7 and 13 m testimony from applicant's
expert engineers m this project (including removal of the existing deck) will add flood
storage volume along this portion of Ashland Creek and will, in accordance with AMC
15.10.080(B)(1), allow the automatic entry and exit of flood waters beneath the proposed
building. Additionally, the existing pedestrian bridge is a fixed structure that exists at an
elevation lower than the 100-year base flood elevation. As such, the existing bridge is
susceptible to flood damage and the potential for it to be transported downstream during a
major flood event. Applicant has proposed a new engineered drawbridge that can be
raised during flood events. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that this project
will not increase areas subject to flooding nor increase the potential for flood damages for
this property or nearby areas.
Riparian Corridor/Vegetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: As to the potential for damage
to thc riparian corridor and its vegetation, this project proposed no removal of riparian
vegetation and, in fact, proposes to enhance thc riparian vegetation along the new
building's Ashland Creek frontage. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that this
project will not adversely impact the riparian corridor or its vegetation along Ashland
Creek for this property or nearby areas.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1 because,
through the application of the development standards of ALUO 18.62 and the Ashland Site
Design and Use Standards, the potential impacts to this property and nearby areas have been
considered, and the adverse impacts have been minimized appropriately.
Criterion 2
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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its
findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1, and concludes that applicant has
considered the potential hazards this development might potentially create and the same are
limited to potential flood damage. The Commission concludes, as it did under Criterion 1,
that the potential flood hazard has been appropriately considered and that by increasing the
flood storage capacity in this area of Ashland Creek (by removing the existing deck and
providing flood storage under the building) that the potential flood hazard has been mitigated.
There are no other hazards related to physical and environmental constraints and the
Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 2.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its
findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 and 2. The Commission concludes
that adverse impacts on the environment, in connection with this project, include: 1) the
potential to increase flooding and flood damage up and downstream, 2) the potential damage
to the riparian corridor and riparian vegetation, and its related impacts to fish and wildlife
habitat. The Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 1 and 2 and further concludes as follows:
Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon the evidence, applicant here has taken the
following reasonable steps which will reduce the adverse impacts upon the environment
with respect to flooding and flood damage:
Applicant has set the building back an appreciable distance from the Ashland Creek
and designed the building in such a way as to increase the flood storage capacity
beneath the building in an amount that is greater than what now exists (with the
existing deck in place).
· Applicant has designed retaining walls (which support the new/proposed deck) to
channel normal storm flows downstream and through the culvert beneath Lithla Way.
Applicant has carefully studied the stream flooding characteristics of Ashland Creek
and designed the project to observe all requirements of the ALUO, AMC 15.10 and
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards.
· A portion of the existing deck is within Ashland's designed flood plain corridor. The
proposed deck has been moved back to be completely outside the flood plain corridor.
The existing pedestrian bridge is a fixed structure that exists at an elevation which is
beneath the 100-year base flood elevation. As such, the existing bridge is susceptible
to flood damage and the potential for it to be transported downstream during a major
flood event. Applicant has proposed a new engineered drawbridge that can be raised
during flood events.
Riparian Corridor/Vegetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: Based upon the evidence,
applicant here has taken the following reasonable steps which will reduce the adverse
impacts upon the environment with respect to the riparian corridor of Ashland Creek and
the riparian vegetation therein:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 16
DEC 1
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Applicant does not propose to remove any riparian vegetation and, instead plans to
enhance the riparian landscape with compatible plant materials, supported by an
automatic underground irrigation system. The same will enhance fish and wildlife
habitat.
Applicant has taken steps to preserve existing significant Big leaf maple trees which
exist in a clump near the retaining wall adjacent to the riparian corridor. The same
will provide continued shading of the creek. Creek shading helps control stream
water temperatures and benefits fish species that occupy the creek. The trees also
provide habitat for birds which use the trees for perching and nesting.
Applicant has set the new deck back further from the riparian corridor than the
existing deck, thereby providing additional space within which landscaping is
planned. Riparian landscaping in a general way will enhance fish and wildlife habitat
by providing cover which is an important habitat component for fish and fur-bearing
animals.
In its consideration of this project, the Planning Commission is required to consider, "the
existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development
permitted by the Land Use Ordinance." Applicant asserts and the Planning Commission
agrees, that this means that it must consider existing development in the surrounding area
and, for vacant or underdeveloped properties, the environmental impacts as if these lands
were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. In this regard, the
Commission concludes that virtually all privately held land (except the subject property) is
now fully developed (or very nearly so) to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO, and
no further consideration of additional development or the intensification of existing
development needs to be considered in this instance.' While applicant has suggested that the
city consider using land beneath the Lithia Way viaduct (with the permission of the Oregon
Department of Transportation) as an arts park, the same is not a part of the applications now
before the city. However, in that this land might be developed as a future arts park, the city
has considered the same in the context of this application, as it is required to consider, "the
maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance." In this regard, the
Planning Commission concludes that nothing in this application would prevent an arts park
or similar use on land beneath the viaduct and concludes that such use on this public land
would be the maximum permitted development under the ALUO. The Commission reaches
similar findings of fact and conclusions of law for the public right-of-way land which exists
north of the proposed building, with respect to its use as an improved pedestrian pathway,
and concludes that nothing in this application would prevent the same from being
implemented.
: While there is some vacant land in the vicinity of the subject property, this land either exists as public rights-
of-way or has been set aside for public parks.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page 17
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3.
Criterion 4
ALUO 18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of
various lands and their constraints to building and development on them.
ALUO 18.62.050(B) Riparian Preservation. The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated for
Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and Environmental
Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Nell and Wrights Creeks.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that portions of the subject
property are located within the Flood Plain Corridor of Ashland Creek. Therefore, these
portions of the property are also subject to the riparian preservation standards in ALUO
18.62.075. The specific standards for riparian preservation are addressed hereinbelow as
Criterion 18.
Criterion 5
ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. For all land use actions which
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 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 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.
Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page 18
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 above, applicant has agreed to stipulate that he will observe the applicable
standards of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, in compliance therewith.
Regarding #2 above and based upon Exhibit 7, the concrete foundation wall for the
proposed building and deck is the closest part of the project to the stream and floodway
channel. The wall is located more than 10 feet from the FEMA Floodway boundary.
Regarding #3 above and based upon Exhibits 2 and 7 fill in the floodplain corridor
associated with this project is limited to the concrete used to form the structural support
for the building and deck. There are no public or private streets or driveways associated
with this project. There is less than 50 cubic yards of other imported material (material
other than concrete or aggregate base/paving material).
· Regarding #4 above, and based upon Exhibit 7 no additional fill is necessary beyond the
50 cubic yard amount required in #3.
Regarding #5 above, applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate to providing proper
engineering to address drainage. The Commission concludes that adequate drainage can
and will be provided for this project in accordance with city standards.
· Regarding #6 above, and based upon Exhibit 7, no fill has been specified in the plans for
the purpose of raising the elevation of the site to accommodate the proposed building.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 5.
Criterion 6
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 are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission is aware that there is an existing pedestrian
bridge that crosses Ashland Creek on the subject property and provides pedestrian access
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page 19
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
thereto. Applicant proposes to replace the existing fixed bridge with a drawbridge, to be
designed by a qualified engineer. The drawbridge can and will be designed so it can be
elevated (drawn-up) so as to be above the water level during a 100-year flood event.
Applicant has agreed to stipulate that the bridge will be designed and constructed in
accordance with Criterion 6. The Planning Commission finds and concludes that applicant
can comply with this standard and, conditions attached to its approval, ensures that
compliance with Criterion 6 will be achieved.
Criterion 7
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 floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland,
Bear or Nell 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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant, in Section VI,
agreed to stipulate to flood proofing in accordance ALUO 18.62.070(C) -- Criterion 7. The
Planning Commission finds and concludes that compliance with Criterion 7 can be met and
conditions imposed on approval of this application, ensures that the requirements of Criterion
7 will be properly observed.
Criterion 8
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 of ten feet above the creek channel on
Ashland, Bear, or Nell 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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the only residential
structures which are a part of this application, are the two apartments to be located on the
upper-most floor. The Exhibit 2 plans (and findings of fact in Section IV) show the elevation
of the apartments are at an elevation substantially higher than the elevation contained in the
maps adopted in AMC Chapter 15.10 or the elevation contained in official maps adopted as
part of ALUO 18.62.060, in full compliance with Criterion 8. Criterion 8 also requires the
elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor, to be certified to the city by an engineer or
surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure and the same will
ensure full compliance with Criterion 8.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 9
Eo
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.
Conclusions of Law: The Ashland Creek Flood Plan Corridor is denoted with a bold solid
red line on the Exhibit 2 plans and these shows that all structures have been placed outside
the Flood Plan Corridor, in compliance with Criterion 9.
Criterion
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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed residential uses
are all on the uppermost floor of the proposed building and, based upon on Exhibit 2, the
building is located outside the flood plain corridor, in compliance with Criterion 10.
Criterion
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 finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon Exhibit 2, all new non-residential uses are located outside
the Flood Plain Corridor boundary and therefore, are not flood plain corridor lands.
Moreover, the Exhibit 2 plans show that the elevation of all habitable floors of the proposed
building, is above not below the flood corridor elevations. Therefore, this application is
consistent with Criterion 11.
Criterion 12
All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor
land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which 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.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
~r,,~, .~ ~ ~[JO~ Page21
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent
with Criterion 12 by reason of inapplicability because that the subject property is neither a
new lot nor one intended to be modified by lot line adjustment.
Criterion
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.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Exhibit 2 plans and Exhibit 7, the Planning
Commission concludes that no habitable basement is proposed for the new building. The
Exhibit 2 plans contemplate a non-habitable basement and the same is described in the
findings of fact in Section IV. Applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate that flood-
proofing will be done in accordance with AMC Chapter 15.10. Based upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the
application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 13.
Criterion 14
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood
plain Corridor lands.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that in Section VI, applicant
agreed to stipulate that neither he nor his tenants will store petroleum products, pesticides, or
other hazardous or toxic chemicals within the designated Flood Plain Corridor, in compliance
with Criterion 14.
Criterion 15
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.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the Exhibit 2 plans and Exhibit 7, the Planning
Commission concludes that no fences are proposed as part of this project. Therefore, the
Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 15.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 22
]Fn 1
Craig A. $1one & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 16
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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant, in Section VI,
agreed to stipulate to flood-proofing in accordance with the standards in AMC 15.10.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 16.
Criterion 17
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:
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.
Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be
permitted to utilize this exception.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes, based upon the Exhibit 2 plans,
that no new local streets are proposed or required as part of this application. Moreover, all
utilities available to this property (and which will be required for the new building) are all
within the right-of-way of North Main Street, and no utility connections are required to cross
the Flood Plain Corridor, in compliance with Criterion 17.
Criterion 18
ALUO 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands.
A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall
comply with the following standards.
1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070)
2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right
angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
DE[; 1 2 200.3
Page 23
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the property is crossed by
Ashland Creek and portions of the property are subject to the Riparian Preservation standards
pursuant to relevant provisions in ALUO 18.62. The Commission concludes as follows with
respect to the four standards in Criterion 18:
Regarding #1 above, the same does not operate as an independent approval standard, but
rather to establish that land subject to riparian preservation is also subject to the city's
flood plain ordinance (ALUO 18.62.070) and the same are addressed hereinabove as
Criterion 5 through 17, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of law for which are
herewith incorporated and adopted.
Regarding #2 above, the evidence shows that the tree removal (Tree No. 1 shown in
Exhibit 3) is needed to comply with other requirements of the ALUO, including
requirements for buildings to extend from side lot line to side lot line, and not to be set
back greater than 20 feet from the front property boundary. In this instance, the evidence
shows that even if the building were setback twenty feet, construction near this tree
(proposed for removal) would likely result in its demise. See, Exhibits 2, 5 and 11. This
evidence shows that all other trees on the property have been preserved to the greatest
extent possible, but that Tree No. 1 could not be preserved for the reasons established in
Exhibits 5 and 11.
Regarding #3 above, no fill within the riparian corridor is proposed. While the city has
engaged experts who have recommended that the Lithia Way culvert be replaced with one
of greater capacity, the same is not proposed as part of this application. The only creek
crossing is the pedestrian bridge, which now exists but is planned to be replaced with a
drawbridge which better meets the standards of the city. Based upon the evidence in
Exhibit 2, the Commission concludes that the bridge location has been placed, to the
greatest extent possible given the physical limitations, at a right angle to the creek.
Regarding #4 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the topography within the
regulated riparian area, has been retained.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 18.
Criterion 19
SITE REVIEW
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 24
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone.
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section
18.72.040(A).
Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant
to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be
reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross
square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or
contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand
up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or
combined contiguous building length, as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized
in the Land Use Ordinance.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this project is subject to
Ashland's Detail Site Review standards. The Commission also concludes that neither this
building nor, in the aggregate, the buildings to which this building is contiguous, exceed
45,000 square feet nor a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Therefore, the
Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 19.
Criterion 20
ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval.
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its
findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 through 52 inclusive (but not including
this Criterion 20) which, with applicant's Exhibit 2 plans and the other evidence enumerated
in Section II hereinabove, demonstrate compliance with all relevant requirements of the
ALUO, including those of the Site Review Chapter-- ALUO 18.72. Therefore, the Planning
Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 20.
Criterion 21
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation
of this Chapter.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its
findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 23 through 52 (inclusive). The
Commission concludes that these demonstrate compliance with the Site Design Standards
which were adopted by the City Council to implement ALUO Chapter 18.72. Therefore, the
Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 21.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
'.,0FP, 1 ?.
Page 25
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 22
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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and applicant's plans in
Exhibit 2, the Planning Commission concludes 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.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 22.
Criterion 23
CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION II
APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES
II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site Design and Use
Standards.
Zone % Landscaping
R-1-3.5 45%
R-2 35%
R-3 25%
C- 1 15%
C-1-D 10%
E- 1 15%
M-1 10%
These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet the needs of
other sections of the Site Review Ordinance, such as screening of parking areas, landscaping of setback areas,
and providing usable outdoor space. In general, all areas which are not used for building or parking areas are
required to be landscaped. You should also be aware that, as a condition of approval of your project, you will be
required to submit a site and species specific landscape plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor approval.
Conclusions of Law: The subject property is zoned C-1-D. Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.110,
there are no area landscape requirements for land in the C-1-D zone, other than for parking
areas and service stations. The project does not include off-street parking nor service
station(s). Therefore, this project is not required to observe the minimum landscaping
standards in Criterion 23. However, applicant here has provided landscaping along Ashland
Creek which, based upon the tindings of fact in Section IV, is in an mount greater than 10
percent. Additional landscaping (not a part of this application) is intended within adjacent
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 26
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
fight-of-way owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation. Based upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the
application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23.
Criterion 24
II-C-'l. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following
development standards:
Il-C-la) Orientation and Scale
1)
Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building
entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public
sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage.
2)
Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street
to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to
the public during all business hours.
3)
These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and
industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service uses such as service stations and tire
stores.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant's plans (Exhibit 2,
Sheet A-201) clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Criterion 24.
Criterion 25
II-C-1 b) Streetscape
One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the
development fronting the street.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission finds that Exhibit 8 shows the existence of
street trees along the subject property's North Main Street frontage. The Planning
Commission concludes that no additional street trees are required to meet the standard in
Criterion 25. Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is
consistent with Criterion 25.
II-C-lc) Landscaping
1)
Criterion 26
Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after
5 years.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page 27
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
2)
3)
Landscaping design use a variety of Iow water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and
flowering plant species.
Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the
Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-
way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially
zoned land.
4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding #1 above, the Exhibit 3 shows, according to applicant's expert landscape
architect, that proposed landscaping has been designed to supply 50 percent coverage
after one year and 90 percent coverage after 5 years.
Regarding #2 above, and based upon Exhibit 3, the Commission concludes that the
proposed landscaping design has used a variety of low water use deciduous and evergreen
trees and shrubs and flowering plant species.
Regarding #3 above, the Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of
fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 23, which concludes that this property is not
subject to landscaping requirements by virtue of its location within Ashland's C-1-D
zoning district. However, as also discussed in the Commission's conclusions of law for
Criterion 23, applicant here has provided proposed landscaping along Ashland Creek (and
additional landscaping that is not a part of this application, within adjacent rights-of-way
owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation). Additionally, as this property is
within the Ashland Historic District, the requirements of Criterion 26 (#3) do not apply.
· Regarding #4 above, applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate that the proposed
living landscape areas will be served by an automatic underground irrigation system.
Regarding #5, applicant contends that efforts have been made to save as many existing
healthy trees and shrubs of the site as possible. However, in order to comply with other
provisions of the ALUO and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, the removal of one
tree is necessary. ALUO 18.61.080 governs the removal of trees and the same is
addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 53, the findings of fact and conclusions of law for
which are herewith incorporated and adopted.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 26.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
2003
Page 28
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 27
II-C-ld) Parking
1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and
screened from non-residential uses.
Conclusions of Law: The subject project is within the Retail Commercial (C-l) District and
within the Downtown Overlay District (C-l-D). Areas within the Downtown Overlay
District are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas except for hotel, motel
or hostel uses. As the proposed uses are neither hotel, motel or hostel uses, the Planning
Commission concludes that this criterion is not applicable. Therefore, this application is
consistent with Criterion 27 by reason of inapplicability.
Criterion 28
II-C-le) Designated Creek Protection
1) Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the
overall design of a given project.
2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant's plans (Exhibits 2
and 4) demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Criterion 28. In reaching this
concludes, the Planning Commission also finds and concludes that the plant materials
specified in Exhibit 4 are native riparian plant varieties.
Criterion 29
II-C-lf) Noise and Glare
Specific attention to glare (AMC 18.72.110) and noise (AMC 9.08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175) shall be considered
in the project design to insure compliance with these standards.
Conclusions of Law: As to glare, the Planning Commission concludes that there is nothing
in the design of this project which will produce glare at levels inconsistent with the Ashland
Municipal Code (AMC). Regarding noise, the Planning Commission finds that this property
is within a small city block which is entirely occupied by commercial buildings and uses.
Additionally, this block is bounded on all sides by the following streets: North Main Street,
Lithia Way and Water Street. While outdoor dining is contemplated in the application, there
is no proposal here for the conduct of outdoor entertainment. Based upon these findings, the
Planning Commission concludes that specific attention has been paid and consideration has
been given to the potential for glare and noise, pursuant to the standards in the Ashland
Municipal Code and that the proposed building and anticipated uses can and will comply.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
DEC 1 2 2003
Page 29
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with
Criterion 29.
Criterion 30
II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
1)
For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site must be made to
comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion, e.g., if building area is to expand by
25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that this application does not
constitute an "expansion" of an existing building because the proposal is for a new building.
Therefore, Criterion 30 is concluded to be inapplicable.
Criterion 31
I1-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the standards for
Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards:
II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
1)
Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of .35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area
Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area
for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ratio.
2) Building frontages greater than 200 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes
in the building facade.
3)
Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of
the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow views into
working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are
prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented
toward loading or service areas.
4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances.
5) Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable.
6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the
rain and sun.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law for
the above Criterion 24 through 30 (inclusive) which are herewith incorporated and
adopted -- the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with all of
the requirements for Basic Site Review. The subject property is within the Detail Site
Review Zone. Moreover, the Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its
findings of fact and conclusions of law for the below Criterion 37 through 40 (inclusive) in
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 30
DEC 1 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates. Ltd.
support of its conclusion that the application is consistent with all of the standards and
criteria for Detail Site Review as required for land within the Detail Site Review Zone.
Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with
Criterion 31.
The Planning Commission also concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 above, this standard only applies to lands located outside the historic
District. As this property is within the Historic District, this standard is inapplicable.
Regarding #2 above and based upon applicant's plans (Exhibit 2) the proposed building
does not have building frontage greater than 200 feet in length. Therefore, the application
is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability.
Regarding #3 and based on applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the only wall within 30 feet of
any street is the front elevation wall, at it contains more than 20 percent in display areas,
windows, or doorways and these allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian
entrances or display areas, consistent with #3.
Regarding #4 and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the building has incorporated
lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish and these emphasize the building
entrances. Materials are a combination of brick, smooth and dappled stucco and glass.
Regarding #5, this project represents an infill of an existing vacant parcel (improved now
only with decking). The existing parcel is adjacent to the public sidewalk on North Main
Street. While this project does not constitute infill within an existing parMng lot, the
standard in #5 is expressed only in permissive not mandatory terms and, therefore, is not
a required approval standard.
Regarding #6 and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the proposed building
incorporates a canopy along most of the building's front elevation which covers a portion
of the adjacent sidewalk and will protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Additionally,
Exhibit 2 shows that there are building overhangs above some of the planned deck
surfaces and these provide additional protection for pedestrians.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with all the requirements of
Criterion 31.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
~'~ 't o ,~,~n., Page31
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 32
II-C-2b) Streetscape
1) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit
masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above.
2)
A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for
pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is proposed for a
site, at least 25% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk.
Conclusions of Law: Regarding #1 above, the planned decks (as shown in applicant's plan
in Exhibit 2) will be "people" areas. While applicant and his architect have not yet
determined the type of material to be used for the decking surface, it will a masonry material
of some type, consistent with the requirements of #1. The Planning Commission, if deemed
appropriate, can establish this as a condition attached to approval of this application. As to
#2, the only public sidewalk that exists near this property, is the sidewalk on North Main
Street, to which the proposed building abuts. Therefore, the proposed building does not
setback more than 20 feet. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements
of Criterion 32.
Criterion 33
I1-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation
1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100
feet in average width or depth.
2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas
or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings.
Developments of one acre 6r more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. On-
site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees,
residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal
circulation of the building.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that off-street parking is not
required within the C-1-D zone and no parking or parking lot is proposed. The Commission
also concludes that this project does not equal one acre or more. As to the lighting and
linking of pedestrian walkways, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show complete pedestrian
linkages, including a linkage across Ashland Creek by way of the proposed (and existing)
bride. The new bridge will be lit and the same is evidenced by applicant's plans in Exhibit 2.
Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with
Criterion 33.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 32
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 34
II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening
l)
Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those
buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed
buildings.
2) Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned
land.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding #1 above, the Planning Commission interprets the term "adjacent" to mean a
lot or parcel that is touching the subject property. Based upon the evidence, this property
adjoins only one adjacent land use, which is the existing building to which the proposed
building will very nearly abut. The existing building is occupied by Ashland Bar & Grill,
a restaurant which the Planning Commission deems to be compatible with the restaurant
and other uses to occupy the proposed building. As to the residential apartments to
occupy the uppermost floor of this building, the Planning Commission finds and
concludes that these are not incompatible with the commercial uses to be housed in this
building and those adjacent thereto. Upper floor residential uses in Ashland's downtown
are desirable and permitted. The Commission also finds that the building materials used
in the construction of the new building (and its upper floor residential apartments) is an
appropriate means to buffer and screen the residential uses from nearby commercial uses.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that no landscape buffer or screening is needed
because there are no incompatible uses on adjacent land.
Regarding #2, this application does not require parking nor is any parking proposed.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with #2 by reason
of inapplicability.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 34.
Criterion 35
II-C-2e) Lighting
1) Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or
placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, there is no free-standing
lighting proposed. The only lighting will be that which is attached to the building, the
pedestrian bridge or the canopies and which is for the purpose of illuminating entrances and
outdoor pedestrian/dining areas. In no instance, is lighting to be at a height of more than 14
feet. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 33
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion
35.
Criterion 36
II-C-2f) Building Materials
1) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least
15% of the exterior wall area.
2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited.
Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding # 1 and based uiS0n applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the proposed building
incorporates architectural features of the types listed which cover more than 15 percent of
the exterior wall area.
Regarding #2 above, and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the colors to be used
are neither bright nor neon, nor does this building incorporate glass as a majority of the
building's skin.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 36.
Criterion 37
II-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: All development 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 9 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root
barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community Development.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the sidewalk on North
Main Street is greater than 9 feet in width. Moreover, street trees have already been planted
along this block of North Main Street. Therefore, no new street trees are proposed or
required to be consistent with this standard. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent
with the requirements of Criterion 37.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 34
DEC ]
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 38
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 safety, affect
the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval.
The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows:
a)
b)
Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly
spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches.
Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not
closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or
utility poles.
c)
Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light
standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such
locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2-1/2 feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it
shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
e) VVhere there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines.
Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in
concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow
additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and
such hard 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 feet
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.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts is
findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 37 and concludes that this property
already has street trees in amounts, types and locations which are consistent with Criterion
38.
Criterion 39
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
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.
Conclusions of Law: Applicant does not anticipate the need to remove any existing street
tree during construction of this project. Therefore, this application is consistent with
Criterion 39 by reason of inapplicability.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 40
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts is
findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 37 and concludes that this property
already has street trees of a type which are consistent with Criterion 40.
Criterion 41
CITY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION IV
HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
IV-C) Historic District Design Standards
In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by the Planning and Historic
Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District:
Recommended:
IV-C-l) Height. Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic periods on and across the
street.
IV-C-2) Scale. Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings.
IV-C-3) Massing. Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on
most buildings from the historic period.
IV-C-4) Setback. Maintain the historic fagade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in
the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings.
IV-C-5) Roof Shapes. Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area.
IV-C-6) Rhythm of Openings. Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the
fagade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade.
IV-C-7) Platforms. The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older
buildings in Ashland.
IV-C-8) Directional Expression. Relate the vertical, horizontal or nondirectional fagade character of new
buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings.
IV-C-9) Sense of Entry. Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other
pronounced architectural forms.
IV-C-10) Imitations. Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For
new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and
character of the historic district should be used.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 36
n~n 1 ~ 9nnn
Craig ^. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Standard # 1 above, requires buildings to be of, "a height of existing buildings from the
historic periods on and across the street." However, Criterion 42(#1) requires building
height to, "vary from adjacent buildings" in order to maintain the traditional "staggered"
streetscape appearance. The Planning Commission concludes that these separate
standards produce an apparent conflict and ambiguity and the Commission resolves the
same, by reading the above #1 to mean that new buildings must be ora height, at least as
tall as existing historic buildings on and across the street. Applicant's plans in Exhibit 2
and the Exhibit 8 photographs show that the height of the proposed building, is to the
height of buildings on the same block and those across North Main Street in compliance
with the requirements of#1.
Regarding #2 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the size and proportions of
the proposed building, relates well to adjacent structures on the same block because, even
though different in some respects, the scale of adjacent buildings is compatible with the
proposed building and consistent with other requirements in Ashland's Site Design and
Use Standards, which require diversity but in ways that make new buildings compatible
with historic ones. For these reasons, this application is consistent with #2.
Regarding #3 above and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the proposed building
is not an uninteresting boxlike form because it has varied masses and interesting
architectural features. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is
consistent with #3.
Regarding #4 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the front walls of adjacent
buildings and those on the same block, are at the North Main Street sidewalk, which is
the same location proposed for the new building, consistent with #4.
Regarding #5 above, the new building is proposed to have a flat roof similar to buildings
on the same block and others in Ashland's historic downtown area.
Regarding #6 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed building has
provided for the alternation of wall areas with doors and windows which have been
incorporated into the overall design of the wall facades.
Regarding #7 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show a raised platform at the North
Main Street building entrance, consistent with #7.
Regarding #8 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show the proposed building in relation
to those on the same block and demonstrate that its horizontal fagade character relates
appropriately to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings in the same
block, consistent with #8.
Regarding #9 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the main entrance to the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page 37
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
new building off North Main Street, is appropriately articulated with pronounced
architectural features which clearly denote the building entrance, consistent with g9.
Regarding gl0 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed building
consists of traditional architecture which the Commission concludes, well represents our
own time and enhances the nature and character of the adjacent historic buildings and
historic district in general, consistent with gl 0.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 41.
Criterion 42
CITY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
VI-A) Height
1)
Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either "stepped" parapets or slightly dissimilar
overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" streetscape appearance. An exception to this standard
would be buildings that have a distinctive vertical/facade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent
buildings. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10, Avoid 3)
2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10)
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding gl above, and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, stepped parapets have
been used and here produce buildings which have dissimilar heights to those in this same
block.
· Regarding g2 above, although it is not expressed in mandatory terms, the proposed
building has multiple stories.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 42.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 38
DEC 1 2 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 43
VI-B) Setback
1)
Except for arcades, alcoves, and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the
sidewalk or property line (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5 & 10). Areas having public utility easements or
similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard.
2) Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a "sense of entry"
through design or use of materials. (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 3).
3) Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and
new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 7).
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding # 1 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed building
maintains a zero setback from the only sidewalk which exists near the property on North
Main Street and the same clearly demonstrates compliance with the requirements of #1.
· Regarding #2 above, and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 the building's North
Main Street entry is recessed, consistent with #2.
Regarding #3 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 shows that the only projected balcony
is the cantilever which is located on the buildings rear elevation. The rear elevation is not
a street facing elevation. Therefore, this application is consistent with #3.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 43.
Criterion 44
VI-C) Width
1)
The width of a building shall extend from side lot line to side lot line (Illustration: Recommend 5). An
exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining
space or rear access for pedestrian walkways.
2)
Lots greater than 80' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by
incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 10;
Avoid 3).
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding #1 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed building will
extend from the northwesterly side property line and very nearly adjoin the existing
building to the southeast, forming a connected series of four buildings which extend
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
I)EC 1 003
Page 39
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
across the North Main Street streetscape within this downtown block, consistent with gl.3
Regarding #2 above, the evidence in applicant's plans (Exhibit 2) and the photographs of
the subject property and surrounding area (Exhibit 8) do respect the traditional width of
buildings found in Ashland's downtown and has done so by incorporating divisions in the
facade in the building's design, which the Commission concludes from the evidence, are
rhythmic.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 44.
VI-D) Openings
1)
Criterion 45
Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportion of transparency (i.e., windows)
compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10).
2) Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and relationship of new
windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features shall be visually compatible with the
original architectural character of the building. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 4 & 9).
3) Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). (Illustration:
Recommend 1, 5 & 6; Avoid 8).
4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building. (Illustration:
Recommend 5).
5)
6)
Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent. (Illustration: Recommend 10; Avoid 4).
Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative corbeling
shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 4 & 7). Blank walls
adjacent to a public sidewalk is prohibited,
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding gl above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show a consistent pattern of windows
which are compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area and with buildings in
this same block. Applicant's plans are also consistent with illustrations 1, 5, 6 and 10 of
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards and establish compliance with the
requirements of #1.
Regarding #2 above, this application involves a new building and does not involve altered
or added building elements. Therefore, this application is consistent with #2 by reason of
inapplicability.
3 Three of these four buildings are owned by this owner and, with the proposed building, these three buildings
will extend from side lot line to side lot line of the subject property.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 40
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Regarding #3 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 clearly demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of #3.
Regarding #4 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 clearly demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of #4.
Regarding #5 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 clearly demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of #5.
Regarding #6 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show windows and other interesting
architectural features which demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #6.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 45.
Criterion 46
VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms
1) Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streetfront shall be maintained. (Illustration:
Recommend 1,5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8).
2) A clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. (Illustration:
Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10).
3)
Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower window sills,
with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "sense of strength". (Illustration:
Recommend 1, 5 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8).
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
· Regarding # 1, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 (which also show the streetfront of buildings
within this same block) demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #1
Regarding #2, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show a canopy which produces a clear visual
division between the ground floor and upper floors compliance with the requirements of
#2.
Regarding #3, the proposed building has a base similar to buildings on this same block.
If the Planning Commission finds that a greater base in needed to achieve more clear
compliance with this standard, applicant is willing to so stipulate.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 46.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
DEC
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 47
VI-F) Vertical Rhythms
1)
New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either through actual volumes or
the use of surface details to divide large walls, so as to reflect the underlying historic property lines.
(Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 3).
2)
Storefront remolding or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural system of the volume by
matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surface detailing. (Illustration: Recommend 6;
Avoid 4 & 9).
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding #1, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the front elevation has been
broken up by stepping back the sides from the middle section and the same promotes a
vertical orientation. The windows and doors of the building further produce a vertical
emphasis. The application is consistent with #1.
Regarding #2, the application involves a new building and not storefront remodeling or
upper story additions, therefore this application is consistent with #2 by reason of
inapplicability.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 47.
Criterion 48
VI-G) Roof Forms
i)
Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless visually screened from
the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front shall incorporate a well defined cornice
line or "cap" along all primary elevations. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5 & 10; Avoid 7).
Conclusions of Law: Applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the proposed roof will be flat
and will be screened by a parapet which contains a well defined cornice line on all sides of
the building, in compliance with the requirements of Criterion 48.
Criterion 49
VI-H) Materials
1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area
including block, brick, painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 9).
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Craig A. Stone 8, Associates, Ltd.
2)
In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled" exteriors with
columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to create multiple surface levels. (Illustration: Recommend
1, 5 & 10; Avoid 7, 8 & 9).
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the exterior building materials will
be red brick and painted smooth and dappled stucco consistent with #1.
Regarding //2, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show transoms on lower floor doors and
windows and these, along with the doors and windows themselves, form complex panels
consistent with #2 (which in any event merely encourages and does not operate as an
approval standard).
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 49.
Criterion 50
VI-I Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters
1)
Awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building and shall not
obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows exist, awning placement shall
be placed below the mezzanine or transom windows where feasible. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10;
Avoid 4 & 9).
2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed between pilasters.
(Illustration: Recommend I & 5; Avoid 9).
3) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streetfront shall be maintained
by their respective sidewalk coverings. (Illustration: Recommend 5; Avoid 8).
Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2, the Planning Commission
concludes as follows:
Regarding # 1, the canopy to be located on the front building elevation is proportionate to
the building and does not obscure its architectural details.
Regarding #2, the proposed canopy is placed between the pilasters.
Regarding #3, the subject property exists on a sloped street. However, as shown on the
Exhibit 2 plans (which also depict nearby buildings in the same block) the prominent
horizontal lines (including canopies) of the proposed building are at similar levels to
similar features on the nearby buildings within this street's streetfront. The proposed
building has prominent horizontal lines which are similar to the levels of the horizontal
lines of the streetfront.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 43
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 50.
Criterion 51
VI-J) Other
1)
Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of
buildings shall therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, brick, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or
without windows.
2)
Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding building elements. This
shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers, the horizontal definition of spandrels and
cornices, and other primary structural and decorative elements. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9).
3)
Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design
elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 &
9).
4)
Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. (Refer to Site Design and Use Standards,
Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards.) An exception to this standard would
be paths required for handicapped accessibility.
5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades,
porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible.
6)
Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire
stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional
Use Permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
Regarding #1, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that the rear and sidewalls of the
proposed building are, in fact, fairly simple and consist of red brick, smooth and dappled
painted stucco, consistent with the requirements of #1.
Regarding #2 and #3, these appear to deal with changes to existing buildings. As the
application here is for a new building, it is consistent with #2 and #3 by reason of
inapplicability.
· Regarding #4, no parking lot proposed or required in this application. Therefore, the
application is consistent with #4 by reason of inapplicability.
Regarding #5, the applicant's Exhibit 2 plans show the existence of broad sidewalks
which are more than 10 feet wide. The Exhibit 2 plans also show several pedestrian
amenities and details that are oriented to pedestrians consistent with #5. As to sidewalk
seating, none is proposed. However, sidewalk seating could be provided if determined by
the Planning Commission to be needed to comply with #5 and, if so determined, applicant
herewith agrees to stipulate.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 44
DEC i 20 3
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
· Regarding #6, the proposed building and uses intended to be housed in it, are not
exclusively automotive. Therefore, the application is consistent with #6.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 51.
Criterion 52
CITY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
DOWNTOWN ASHLAND AREA STANDARDS
The following criteria are adopted with this plan and shall be used as part of the land use approval process:
Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development:
VI-l) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited.
VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and
sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible.
VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new developments.
VI-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank
walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited.
VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial, residential, or
parking uses.
VI-6)
Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire
stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional
Use permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
· Regarding VI-1 above, no parking lots are required or proposed
Regarding VI-2, the Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings
of fact and conclusions of law for #4 in Criterion 51 and concludes that this application is
consistent with #VI-2, above.
Regarding VI-3, the only key pedestrian path adjacent to the proposed building is the
sidewalk on North Main Street and it is protected from the weather by a canopy proposed
on the front building fagade, making this application consistent with # VI-3.
Regarding VI-4, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show that windows and other architectural
features of interest to pedestrians, have been provided on the building's front fagade,
adjacent to the North Main Street sidewalk, consistent with #VI-4. The Commission also
concludes that no blank walls adjacent to sidewalk has been proposed.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page 45
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Regarding VI-5, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 and the findings of fact in Section IV,
show that the proposed building is of multiple stories with the upper floors devoted to
commercial and residential uses consistent with #VI-5.
Regarding VI-6 the Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings
of fact and conclusions of law for #6 in Criterion 51 and concludes that this application is
consistent with #VI-6, above.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 52.
Criterion 53
TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter
ALUO Chapter 61 Tree Preservation & Protection
ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-
Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an
arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant
demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and
injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of
way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or
services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the
condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of
property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated
by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC
18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
applicant demonstrates all of the following:
The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site
Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to
be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree wilt not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 46
Craig A. Stone & Assoc~tes, Ltd.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans
or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
Conclusions of Law: This application involves the proposed removal of one tree which is
identified as Tree No. 1 on applicant's Tree Preservation Plan (Exhibit 3). Tree No. 1 is a
stand-alone tree. Based upon the evidence in Exhibits 5 and 11, the tree is not considered a
hazard at this time, although according to applicant's expert landscape architect and arborist
the tree would become a hazard because of the effect construction would have on the root
system. While applicant's experts agree that the tree to be removed would become a hazard,
it is not deemed a hazard at this time. Therefore, the Planning Commission will consider the
removal of this tree (Tree No. 1) pursuant to the four standards in ALUO 18.61.080(B) --
trees that are not a hazard, and reaches the following conclusions of law:
Regarding #B(1), the standard expressed in Section VI-C(1) of the Ashland Site Design
and Use Standards (ASDUS) requires buildings in the downtown to extend from side lot
line to side lot line. Moreover, the standard in ASDUS VI-B(4) requires buildings to
maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line (other than for arcades,
alcoves and other recessed features). The removal of Tree No. 1 is needed to permit this
· application to be consistent with ASDUS VI-C(1) and VI-B(4). Additionally, ASDUS II-
C-2b(2) requires buildings to be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk.
Tree No. 1 is approximately 8 feet from the North Main Street sidewalk. By setting the
building back the maximum 20 feet, the building would still be within 12 feet of the
truck. In Exhibit 11, applicant's expert arborist testified: "If construction is to occur
closer than 20 feet from the truck, it is very unlikely that the Alder would survive."
Therefore, the removal of Tree No. 1 is also needed to permit this application to be
consistent with ASDUS II-C-2b(2). For these reasons, the Commission concludes that
the removal of Tree No. 1 is in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other
applicable Site Design and Use Standards), consistent with #B(1) above.
Regarding #B(2), the Commission concludes, based upon Exhibit 5 and the expert
opinion of applicant's landscape architect, that removal of this tree will not have a
significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of
adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because: 1) This tree is within the building
footprint; erosion and soil stability will not be an issue beneath the building, and because
the flow of surface waters will be directed by the new drainage incorporated into the
proposed structure, and 2) this is a solitary tree and not part of a grove or a windbreak and
its removal will not have a negative impact on other trees.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page47
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Regarding #B(3), the Commission concludes, based upon Exhibit 5 and the expert
opinion of applicant's landscape architect, that removal of this tree will not have a
significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity
within 200 feet of the subject property because: 1) the site is adjacent to Ashland Creek
and the existing riparian corridor along the creek contains a wide variety of sizes and
densities of wooded species with a varied tree canopy, and 2) species diversity will not be
negatively impacted because this tree is commonly found along Ashland Creek. For these
reasons, the Commission concludes that removal of Tree No. 1 is consistent with #B(3)
above.
Regarding #B(4), the Commission concludes, based upon Exhibit 5, that applicant will
mitigate the removal of these trees and has agreed to stipulate in Section VI. Due to
limited available space on the subject property the location of the mitigation planting will
also need to occur off-site at a location yet to be determined. Applicant also intends to
commission an artist's sculpture from the trunk of Tree No. 1 and the creation of benches
from that trunk, to be displayed in an appropriate location. See, Exhibit 12. Applicant has
also made recommendations as to where these would be displayed and the same are stated
in the findings of fact in Section I. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the Planning Commission concludes that the application is consistent
with the requirements of #B(4).
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 53.
VI
SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS STIPULATIONS
Applicant herewith agrees to stipulate to the following matters:
Stipulation 1.
Heating/Cooling/Lighting: Applicant will provide the method of heating,
cooling and lighting of the building and the approximate annual amount of
energy used per each source and the methods used to make the
approximation at the time the construction drawings are submitted and prior
to issuance of building permits.
Stipulation 2.
Engineered Utility Plans: Applicant will provide engineered plans which
show the location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the
proposed development.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 48
DEC i 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Stipulation 3.
Stipulation 4.
Stipulation 5.
Stipulation 6.
Stipulation 7.
Stipulation 8.
Stipulation 9.
Stipulation 10.
Recycling: Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.115, applicant will provide an
opportunity-to-recycle site for the use of the project occupants and said side
will be located within the interior of the proposed building.
Mitigation for Tree Removal: Applicant will mitigate the removal of Tree
No. 1 as shown on Exhibit 3. However, because space on the subject
property is limited, the location of the mitigation planting will need to occur
off-site at a location to be determined by the City of Ashland. As further
mitigation: 1) applicant will commission an artists sculpture (as envisioned
in Exhibit 12) from the trunk of Tree No. 1 (and various benches) for display
in a location deemed appropriate by the city, 2) applicant will plant ferns and
other appropriate riparian vegetation within the riparian corridor of Ashland
Creek, and 3) also see Applicant's Intentions, Not A Part of this
Application as described in Section I hereinabove.
Fill: Fill will be engineering and constructed in accord with applicable
requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70.
Pedestrian Bridge: The proposed pedestrian bridge will replace the existing
bridge on the subject property. The bridge will be designed as a drawbridge
that can be raised to an elevation above the 100-year water surface during
large flow events. The bridge will be designed by an engineer licensed in
Oregon and will be designed to comply with ALUO 18.62.070(B).
Flood Proofing: All portions of the property required to be flood proofed,
will conform in all respects with the relevant provisions of ALUO
18.62.070(C) and AMC 15.10. The elevation of the finished lowest
habitable floor will be certified by a qualified engineer or surveyor prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure
Storage of Materials within Flood Plain Corridor: Neither applicant nor
applicant's tenants shall store petroleum products, pesticides, or other
hazardous or toxic chemicals on any part of the property located within the
Flood Plain Corridor.
Irrigation System: All proposed living landscape areas on the property, will
be served by an automatic underground irrigation system.
Drainage: Applicant will provide plans prepared by a qualified engineer
registered in Oregon which address how adequate drainage will be provided
for this project in accordance with city standards.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003
Page 49
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Stipulation 11. Uses: Applicant will ensure that not less than 65 percent of the gross floor
area of the ground floor of the building will be occupied by uses that are
permitted or special permitted and excluding residential uses.
VII
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1 through 53 --
the relevant substantive criteria and standards which are prerequisite to approval of the various
applications submitted as part of this consolidated land use application. Therefore the
applications are conditionally approved and made subject to the agreed to stipulations of
applicant enumerated in Section VI hereinabove and the additional conditions established by
the Planning Commission, which are a part of the staff report on this matter.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicant Lloyd Haines and 88 North Main, LLC:
CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Dated: December 12, 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
December 12, 2003 Page 50
XHIBIT_
December 3, 2003
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter concerns the removal of a single tree which is the subject of applications filed by Lloyd M.
Haines. The tree is identified on the Tree Preservation Plan which we prepared for the above
captioned project. The tree is identified on the Tr~e Preservation Plan as Tree No. 1.
Tree No. 1 (Alnus Rubra):
The tree referred to on the attached Tree Permit, No. 1, is an Alnus Rubra. It is located on Lloyd
Haines Shasta Building construction site, and is not a hazard at the present time. However, because
this tree is located within the building envelope it is recommended to be removed. On this tree, we
have worked with Certified Arborist, Tom Myers and together we have determined that this tree does
not presently pose a hazard. However, this species is subject to Armillaria root rot, prevalent in our
area, and the same is likely to develop with construction on this site, especially construction within 20
feet of its trunk. While not a hazard at this time, construction near the tree will lead to the inevitable
decline and death of the tree which will then produce a hazard.
It is my opinion that the removal of tree No. 1 will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,
soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because:
The tree location is within the building footprint, erosion and soil stability will not be an issue
beneath the building, the flow of surface waters will be directed by the new drainage
incorporated into the structure.
· This is a solitary tree not part of a grove or a windbreak and its removal will not have a
negative impact on other trees.
It is also my opinion that the removal of tree No. 1 will not have a significant negative impact on the
tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property because,
The site is adjacent to Ashland Creek and the existing riparian corridor along the creek contains
a wide variety of sizes and densities of wooded species with a varied tree canopy.
Species diversity will not be negatively impacted because this tree is commonly found along
Ashland Creek.
145 S. Holly StreeT, Suite A · Medford, OR 97501 · (541) 770-7964 · Fax (541) 770-5164
Licensed · Bonded · Insured · Landscape Business #6661 · Landscape COnmactor #12398 · General Contractor #104274 · Landscape Architrct OR-#25zl, C^-#2980
www.galbraithandassociates.com · contact@galbraithandassociates.com
Mr. Haines will mitigate the removal of this tree. However, due to limited available space on the
subject property, the location of the mitigation planting will occur off-site at a location yet to be
determined.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
John Galbraith, ASLA
Galbraith & Associates
Page 2
'DEC 1 2 ~n~'
17,$55 sw boones ferry road . lake oswego, or~on 97o$5-5z'[7
www. o~ak.com
~ovember 12, 2003
Mr. Lloyd Haines
51 Water Street, Suite 222
Ashland, OR 97520
Re:
Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03
Otak Project No. 11826
Dear Mr. Haines:
Otak has reviewed the site plans provided by Architectural Design Works, Inc., as shown
in the attachments. It is our conclusion that the proposed building and site improvements
will improve the hydraulic performance and habitat function of Ashland Creek adjacent to
the project and are designed in such a way as to min/'mi~e/mpacts to Ashland Creek
during flood condit/ons. This letter documents the aspects of the design that Otak was
asked to consider and how the design fits within the requirements outlined by the City of
Ashland Flood Hazard Or~linances.
Ashland Creek
According to the "Ashland Creek Hydraulic Invest/gation" (Otak, 1997), this reach of
Ashland Creek flows in a backwater condition during flood flows due to the limiting size of
the culvert beneath Lithia Way that is located immediately downstream of the subject
project. This condition will continue during flood flows unt/1 such time as the culvert is
removed or replaced with a larger culvert. After such time as the culvert is removed or
replaced, the water surface elevation upstream of the exist/ag culvert and adjacent to the
subject property would be reduced during flood flows.
Flood Hazard Elevations
The City of Ashland part/cipates in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
National Flood Insurance Program. Ashland Creek is part of that program and the
100.year floodplain was mapped, adopted~ and published by FEMA in 1981. Maps
published by FEMA also define a Floodway Boundary. Buildings and walls are not allowed
to be constructed within the Floodway. The City of Ashland ALUO 18.62.070(A)(2) further
restricts development within 10 feet of the Floodway. The proposed project is not located
in the Floodway, and the plans show the building more than the required 10 feet from the
Floodway boundary. At the location of this project site, the 100.year water surface
elevation or Base Flood Elevation (BFE) adopted by FEMA is at elevation 1,872 feet. The
DEC 1 2 DO3
Mr, Lloyd Haines
Flood Hazard A~sessment [or Shasta Building '03
Page 2
November 12, 2003
City of Ashland maints;ns a separate flood hazard zone based on observations made during
past flood events. The City ofAshlnnd BFE at the location of thi~ project site defined by
the City's Flood Hazard boundary is 1,875.5 feet.
Proposed Shasta Building '03
The proposed site plan includes construction of a new building between Main Street and
Ashland Creek, landscape planting to enhance the riparian area adjacent to Ashland Creek
on both sides of the Creek, and replacement of the pedestrian bridge over Ashland Creek.
The base of the new building will be setback further from the water's edge than the edge of
the existing decks to allow room for planting a riparian area between the stream and the
budding. The foundation for the new building consists of a concrete wall and will include
at least one square inch of opening for every square foot of floor area through the
foundation wall to allow flood water access to the underfloor space per City of Ashland
Munlcips] Code 15.10.080 (ti) ?revisions for Flood Hazard Protection: Spec/ftc Standardsf
As shown in attached Drawing A-30I the First Level, Second Level, and Third Level
all be entirely above both the FEMA BFE and the Civ7 of Ashland BFE.
Conveyance of Flood Flows
If the culvert beneath Lithia Way were to be removed or replaced with a larger culvert,
then the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill building and Siskyou Brewery building create a
constriction to flow immediately upstream of the proposed project. Since the proposed
project will be located further from the stream edge, it increases the width of stream
channel available for conveyance of flood flows which will be wider than the width of flow
upstream between the neighboring buildings. The conveyance capacity of a stream in
backwater is controlled at the downstream end. The culvert beneath Lithia Way will not
change as a result of this project. Therefore, Ashland Creek will continue to flow in a
backwater condition. As shown on the plans, this project will increase flood storage
volumes over current levels.
Estimated Flood Storage Impacts
At~ched Drawings A-106 and A-301 show the finished ground contours and profile relative
to the existing ground contours and profile. The volume of fill assoc4ated with this project
that will be located below the Base Flood Elevations is equal to the volume of concrete
needed to construct the building, deck, and elevator foundation walls. Calculation o£ the
estimated volume is summarized in Table 1.
DEC i 2 2003
Mr. Lloyd Haines
F~ood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Buildir~g '03
Page 3
November I2, 2003
Table 1
Estimated volume of ~l! below the Base Flood Elevation resulting from this project
Fill Material Assumed Dimensions Volume Below Volume Below
FEMA BFE Ashland BFE
(ft~) fid)
Concrete 198 feet of, 8 inches thick, foundation 1,330 1,796
Foundation Walls wall. 10 feet high to FEMA BFE 13.5
feet high to Ashland BFE
Concrete Patio 483 square feet of area. 24" thick, 966 966
Deck including floor joists and slab.
Elevator Shaft/ 83 square feet of area. 10 feet high to 830 1,114
Mechamcal FEMA BFE 13.5 feet high to Ashland
Equipment Room BFE
TOTAL 3,126 3,876
Esthnated Flood Storage Mitigation
The proposed project includes removal measures to b~dance (and over-compensate for) the
fill that will be placed below the BFE. The removal measures include excavation of
existing bank materials to create ample crawl space below the building and an access
hallway on Level 1 to the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. An unlruown volume of wood timbers
will also be removed from below the BFE's when the existing decks are removed.
Calculation of the estimated volume is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Estimated volume of'removal below the BFE resulting from this project
Removal Assumed Dimensions Volume Below Volume Below
Material FEMA BFE Ashland BFE
Patio, Hallway. Hallway width is .4.5 feet. 289 fta/foot of 907 1,300
and Stairs to hallway width for Ashland BFE, 202
A.~hl~nd Creek frs/foot of hallway width for FEMA BFE.
Bar & Grill
Soil excavation for Excavate along 43 feet of the $~ream. 2,279 4,085
crawl space Max of 190 f~/ft of bank for Azkland
BFE, 106 ftz/ft ofb~-l~ for FEMA BFE.
Average removal along stream is half of
maximum (95 ft~ or 53 ft"/ft) of bank.
TOTAL 3,186 5,385
DEO i 2 2003
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03
Conclusion
Page 4
November 12, ~005
This project allows for increased channel conveyance if other restr/cfions w flow in the
vidnity of this project site are removed. This project will add flood storage volume to this
location of Ashland Creek, While the flood storage volume is beneath the proposed
building, design features requ/red by the City of,ashland Municipal Code 15.10.080(B)(1)
have been incorporated to allow the automat/c entry and ex/t of flood-watere between
Ashland Creek and the flood storage volume. All o£ the new building will be located above
the Base Flood Elevation.
I£ there are add/tional questions or concerns regarding the site design relative to the flood
functions o£ Ashland Creek, please call Kev/n Timmins at (503) 699-4577.
Sincerely,
Otak, Incorporated
R. Gregg Weston, PE
Print/pal
KT:RGW:bld
c:
Cra/g Stone, via Mail and Fax (541) 779-0114
Bobbi Becker
David R/chardson
Enclosures
D£C-11-~3 1S,3~ FROH,OTAK Inc. ID,SO3 ~3S S3~S ~u~
boon~ ~rry rood . lak~ oswego, or.on 97o~-.~z
(503) 6~5.3618 · fax (50~) 635-5~5
www. otek.com
December 5, 2003
Mr. Lloyd Hames
51 Water Street, Suite 222
Ashland, 01t 97520
Shasta Buildi. ng '03- Development Standards for Floodplain
Corridor Lands ~ Otak Project No, I1826
Dear Mr. Haines:
You asked us to comment and express our opinion relative to some of the City of Ashland's
Development Standards as they relate to your proposed development. Based on our review
of the plans for tiffs project prepared by your architect, Dave Richardson (a copy of whlch is
attached), Otak offers' the following commente and opL-.ions:
ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands
For all land use actions which could result in development of the Floodplain corridor, the
following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10.
Standards for fill ~n Floodplain Corridor lands:
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.
Otak Comment ~ The term '~oodway" is a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) term. The floodway of Ashland Creek is shown on Sheet A-103 of the architect's
plans. The concrete foundation wall for the proposed deck/building is the closest part of the
project to the stream. The wall is locked more than 10 feet from the FEMA Floodway
boundary. No earthen fill iz proposed within the floodway or ten feet from Lt.
The amount of t~l 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
]~mi~ed to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on
the lot.
D~C-11-03 1S~36 FMOM:OT~K Inc.
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Shasta Building '03-- Development Standards for Floodplain
Corridor Lands
Page 2
December 5, 2003
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public
and private street and driveway construction.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
Otak Comment -- According to the architectural plans for the project, fill in the floodplain
corridor associated with this project is limited to the concrete used ~o form the structural
support for the building and deck. There are no public or private streets or driveways
a.~sociated with this project. There is less than 50 cubic yards of other imported material
(material other than concrete or aggregate base/paving material).
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
material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Floodplain Corridor.
Otak Comment -- l~ill material shown on plans does not exceed the permitted amours in
item number three (3) above.
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.
Otak Comment B No fill is specified in the plans to be used to raise the site.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted
pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be des~ned by an engineer.
Otak Comment -- Through discussion with the architect, it is our understanding that the
new drawbridge shown on the plans replaces the pedestrian bridge with a drawbridge that
can be raised to an elevation above the lO0.year water, surface during large flow events.
Ail 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 I5.10,
or to the elevation contained in the offic~.l maps adopted by section 18.62.060,
whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be
constructed at 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
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
certi~cate of occupancy for the structure.
DEC ! 2 2003
Mr. Lloyd Haines Page $
Shasta Building '03-- Developrner~t Standards for Floodplain
Corridor Lands December g, 2003
Otak Comment -- The Third Level contains residential apartment units. The plans show
that this level and all access routes will be located more than one-foot c~bove both the
elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10 and the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 13.62.060.
I. Basements
1. Habitable ba~ement~ are not perraitted for new or existing structures or additions
located within the Flood plain Corridor.
Otak Comment -- The plats do not show a habitable baserner~t in the proposed building.
Non-habitable basement~, used for storage, p~rking, and similar uses-are permitted
for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standzrds of Chapter
15.10.
Otak Comment -- The foundation walls are designed to allow entry and exit of flood
waters to the non-habitable underfloor portion of the building. The underfloor area will'be
flood-proofed to the standards in Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
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
eonect 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.
Otak Comment -- There are no proposed fences shown on the plans ir~ conjunction with
this project.
Decks and structures other th_-u buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands
and at or below the levels specified in section I8.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed
to the standards contaf~ed in Chapter 15.10.
Otak Comment -- There are no decks or structures at or below the levels specified in
section I8.62.070. C and D.
L.,x.~b¢~,ct\ i 1 ~0\ I I L?.6XAdm~\COP..RES~ XtL~i~ 120 $05L01 .~1~d
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Shasta Building '03-- Development Standards for F~oodplain
Corridor Lands
Page 4
December 5, 2003
We trust this letter will assist you in addressing the City of Ashland's various appJ.ication
approval standards. Please contact Kevin Timmins at (503) 699-4577 or myself with
questions regarding the contents of this letter.
Sincerely,
Otak, Incorporated
R. Gregg Weston, PE
Principal
KT:RGW:bld
C;
Craig Stone, v/o Mail and Fo~ (54I) 779-0114
Bobbi Becket
David PAchardson
Enclosures
Subject Property
[---}, Tax Lots
..i~'~::,.:i~' Urban Growth Boundary
streams & Ditches
/V streams
Ditches
Station Point and
Photograph Number
Exhibit 8
Photograph Key Map
Source: Jackson County GIS Services
Lloyd Haines
December 10, 2003
40
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. '
Medford, Oregon
N
0 40 80 120 Feet
Exhibit 8
2;
31
4;
5:
Lloyd Haines - 88 North Main Street LLC.
9EC 1 2 ~003
Exhibit 8
7:
8:
9:
10:
Lloyd Haines - 88 North Main Street LLC.
D[O i g 2003
1300
o.3z AG, S
/y..oO~. JA~.,~,COUNTY
0o9
.._.~AF~QX,
cOO.
IS-it(lO
7600 '"'"
o,1l AC.
19
~9 ~ 9GG
& iHDEX
ASHLAND
Tax Lots
Exhibit 9
Assessor Map
Source: Jackson County GIS Services
Lloyd Haines
December 10, 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, Oregon
Not to Scale
DEC 1 Z ?.003
r
. · ~P-B3-~ 05: 4~ FROM:TOM MYERS 54148841e6 TO: 5,41 482 ~4 P.001
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone 541.482.3667
~epternber 3, 2003
L~fd Haines
~2. N. Main
AatlEmd, OR 97520
Tree Protection Plan for 88 N. Main
The Alder at 88 North Main ia in good overall health. The enclosed field nm
document its current condition. Any construction within its dripline, (20 ~= from the
trunk) will hsve a detrimental impact to its long-term health. Alders are particularly
suscep§ble to root damaging fungus. The cutting of the root system can introduce
any number of root rotting fungi into the system, if roots over four inches in diameter
are cut, the structural integrity of the tree will be compromised. If construciion is to
occur closer than twenty feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder would
survive. The Alders mots extend all the way down to the creek so it is likely that
roots would have to be cut in order to build on this site. Because Armillaria root rot is
prevalent in our area it is likely that any construction on this lot will Introduce the
fungus into the mot system of the alder, If this happens it will lead to the inevitable
deoline and death of the Alder. I have enclosed specifications for oonstruotion
around trees, If you have any further questions please call me at 482-3667.
Sincerely.
Tom Myers Cerl~fied Artx3rtst DBA Upper Umbqt
1
A Photographic Guide to the E~luatio~in Urban Areas
UAT/ON -FO M ,md EdiUon
Map/t.omion: + + .. = __
Failure + ~ + T~get . Hazard
.,
TREE CNA~ ~
-,: s,,ra,d:
r'mm: 9~/oeneragy symmntfic [] minor asymmetry 1'9 major asymmeby I-1 stump sprout i-'lstag.heeded
I~ cbi~. *t~r'dominant [] co-~ominent Cintermediate /-1suppressed
~ ratio:,~ % Age class: []young [] semi-mature E3'J~ature r']over.mature/senescent
PAining history:. [:~'~wn cleaned [] excessively thinned [] topped [] crown raised [] pollarded [] crown redm;ed [] flush cuts I-1 cabled/braced
[] none E:] murdpie pruning eve~ts Approx. dates: _
SpaclalValue: I-Ispecimen E:]heritagp.~historic i-wildiile f-iunususi [] sb'cet tree ~eefl []~'~--~de []indigenous ~Protectedbygov. agency
Foliage color. [~l~onTlal [] chlorotic [] necrotic Epi~°rmicl? y ~ GrawUI obetruclions:
Foliage density:. (]2'h~ormal []sparse Leaf size: []normal E2small []stakes []wireAJes r-lsigns []cables
.Ammalshoot growlh: []excellent r-]average Im poor Twig Diebaek? Y N []curb/pavement l-'lguards
Wcundweod develellment: [] excellent [~J~rage [] ~or [] none []other
Vigor class: [] excellent i~'~verage ~ fair ~ poor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CONDITIONS,
Site Character:. [] residence cf~P'~mercLal "-industrial '-'park [] open space [] natural [] wnodlam:~orest
Laedscopc type: [] parkway ~ raised bed ~ container ~ mound []Lawn ~ shrub border [] wind break
litigation: [] none ,.~)'~quate []inadequate -~ excessive .*'. trunk wettled
Recent site disturbance? y N E] construct]on ~ soildisturbance ~ grade change ~) line cleanng I-'l s~te cieanng
%driplinepaved: 0% 10-25% 25.50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? y N
% drtpline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
% dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100/o
Soil problems: [] drainage [] shallow [] compacted [] droughty [] eaJme [] alkaline r-] acidic E:] smaJI volume [] disease center l'-] history of fail
[] clay [] expansive []slope ° aspect:
0bstmctions: [] lights r-lsignage [] line-of-sight [] view [] overhead lines [] underground utilities Otraffic E] adjacent reg. []
EJq~sura to wind: [:~'ngle tree [] below canopy [] above canopy [] recentty exposed [:] windward, canopy edge ?'1 area prone to wino'throw
Prevailing wind direction:/4-) ~ - Occurrence of snow/ice storms E} never E~-seidom [] rngulady
TARGET
Use Under Tree: [] building [] parldng [] traffic [~"'~estrLan E~?ecreation [] landscape r"l hardscape [] small features [] utility lines
Can target be moved? Y(~) Can use be fesbicled? Y (~
Occupancy:. E] occasional use [~--tttermitteflt use [] frequent use []constant use
The International Society of Arl)oriculture assumes no responsibility for COAC/USiofls or recommendatk:ms derived from use of this form.
Specimen: TREE IIAZARD EVALUATION FORM, Page I
DEC 1 2 2003
TREE DEFECTS '
ROOT DEFECTS:
~ms~l#tfoot for: Y (~ Meshmml~eold~pm#nt: Y N ~
~ p~d: _ dis~ ~m tmflk ~ ~ ~md: % ~ ~ Y N W~
C~; ;.;~ g .._hOOT CP. OWN ~ SCAFFOLDS L'_'-_'%HES
Poor taper
I~J*~ bark '
Ex~_ ~-~e end
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
cav. y
Conks/mush rooms/bra-~..~
- ~-'_~.~iqg/~_%.- flow
L_ _,~_ Jcracked
Nesting hole/bee hive
Dea,dwood/stubs ,,
Borers/termites/ants
Cankers/galls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail:
Inspection period: __ annuaJ__ biannual
Failure Poten'dal + Size of Pa~t + Target Rating = Hazard Rating
HAZARD ABATEMENT
other ~,t~,~
Failure potential: 1 - Iow; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4: severn
Size of pan: 1 - <6' (15 cra); 2 - ~-18~ (1545 cra);
3-18-3(T' (45-75 cra); 4- >30' (75 cm)
Target rating: 1 - occasimml use; 2 intermittent use;
3 - ~quent ~e; 4 - constant use
Prune: O remove defective part [-1 reduc~ end weight r-i crown clean [] thin D raise canopy ~ crown ~uce [] restructure [] shape
Cable/Brace: ¢-¢-~L,. ('c~w,,~.~..._~ ~J~,cl~_~C,c,r'e, d r.c~ r~_~ Inspecthlfther. Orootcrown r-ldecay E]aerial I-lmonitor
Remove tree: Y N ReplaM? Y N Move fa~jet: y N 0Umr.
Ene~ ~ adiaw.t~e~ []none []evaluate
I~otiflcation: []owner [] manager [] governing agency Data:
COMMENTS,
, , , . ,..,- ,,,,,', II
Specimen: 'tREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM, Page 2
Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work
to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures.
The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field.
Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) to remain must be
removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified
arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and under story to
remain.
Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated
equipment..
Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling
and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first
severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting
through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.]
Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist.
The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out.
All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with
equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out,
not by skidding it across the ground.
Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches
Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the
smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. The consultant shall
be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity
All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications
A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree
protection zone
Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six
hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health.
If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6
inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The roadbed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
DEC 1 2 2003
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction
Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all
work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for
each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may
not be relocated or removed without the written permission of the consultant,
Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone.
If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree.
No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within
the tree protection zone (fenced area).
Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified
arborist and not by construction personnel.
Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that
use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water.
If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as
possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is
expected to encounter tree roots.
All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the
soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches.
Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be
installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion w4thin the tree protection zone.
Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any
trees within the specific construction zone shall be root primed 1 foot outside the tree protection zone
by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench
and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.
Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly
with a saw.
If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6
inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
15. Spoil fxom trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection
zone, either temporarily or permanently.
16. No bum piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or
garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree protection zone.
17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or
smoking is allowed near mulch or trees.
Specifications for Tree Pruning
All trees within the project area shall be pruned to:
a) Clear the crown of diseased, crossing, weak, and dead wood to a minimum size of 1 1/2 inches
diameter.
b) Provide 14 feet of vertical clearance over streets and 8 feet over sidewalks.
c) Remove stubs, cutting outside the woundwood tissue that has formed around the branch.
d) Reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter
branches, no greater than 2 to 3 inches near the ends of the scaffolds.
e) Remove any mistletoe.
2. Where temporary clearance is needed for access, branches shall be tied back to hold them out of
the clearance zone.
3. Pruning shall not be performed during periods of flight of adult boring insects because fresh
wounds attract pests. Pruning shall be performed only when the danger of infestation is past.
4. All pruning shall be performed by a qualified arborist.
5. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree-Pruning Guidelines (International Society of
Arboriculture) and/or the ANSI A300 Priming Standard (American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations) and adhere to the most recent edition of ANSI Z133.1.
6. Interior branches shall not be stripped out.
7. Pruning cuts larger than 4 inches in diameter, except for dead wood, shall be avoided.
8. Priming cuts that expose heartwood shall be avoided whenever possible.
9. No more than 20 percent of live foliage shall be removed within the trees.
10. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require
treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the consultant.
11. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees within the tree protection zone
to a maximum depth of six inches leaving the trunk clear of mulch.
2OO3
EXHIBIT 12
A tree's death brings living art
Lawyer, woodworker
team up to honor
historic Oregon tribe
........ By MYLES MURPHY
Ashland Dally Tidings
A Talent woodworker is transforming a dead white
oak tree into a work of art, infusing the old snag with
Native American significance while honoring the tree
itself.
"It's all from a Native American perspective, but it's
not a totem pole," artist Russell Beebe said this morn-
ing, shaping the shoulder of a large eagle 20 feet off the
ground.
The eagle crowns Beebe's tree sculpture -- a amal-
gamation of carved human figures representing a sun
god and goddess, and traditional totem-like figures
from Native America culture such as the raven, bear
and frog.
"The raven is a teacher, but he's also foolishness,"
..lle~l~ said. "The bear is lflm a
cop. Whenever there's trouble,
they send the bear to go fix it."
Human figures are never in-
cluded on a traditional totem
The pole, and the free-form, three-di-
mensional eagle is a testament to
universe Beebe's ability to transcend con-
puts ventions while honoring them.
The eagle's wings point straight
pi up to the sky. Its fierce talons
peoe seem to grip the oak with a dy-
together namic strength and its intense
eyes seem to follow the observer.
"They say the eagle is the first
to fly," Beebe said. '~s long as he
sees somebody making offerings
to the creator, they will have his
blessing. If he doesn't, then its all
LLOYD over."
HAINES, Beebe, 61, scrambles about the
scaffolding around the tree with
HOMEOWNER ease. He has been working with
wood for 24 years -- mostly spe-
cialized carved furniture -- but
this larger pr~oject is a challenge
he wasn't sure he could meet.
"It's getting me into shape," Beebe said. "The body is
always moving, always adjusting."
Beebe was commissioned by Ashland httorney
Lloyd Haines to transfigure the dead tree on Haines' ru-
ral property outside Talent. After the flood of 1997,
Haines was forced to rebuild a creek bank near the
foundation of his home, work which likely killed the
tree.
"It was a beautiful old tree," Haines said. "1 wanted
to honor the tree and have something bigger come out
of it than firewood. Russell's vision makes this pro-
roundly beautiful."
Haines wanted something to remember the tree, and
also to honor the Takelma Indians which first inhabit-
ed Southern Oregon. An Anishinabe Native American
himseff, Beebe understood Haines' wish.
"Russell and I came together because the universe
puts people together," Haines said.
Beebe is a member of the Siskiyou Woodcraft Guild
and has worked as an illustrator, painter, industrial de-
signer and automotive desigher.
But this. is his first tree carving.
"It's the culmination of everything I've learned."
Ashland Daily Tidings/DENISE BARATTA
Russell Beebe carves a giant white oak into a wood sculn-
tare honoring NorthWeSt Native Americans this morning at'a
Talent home. The tree'S owner enlisted Beebe to undertake
the project to bring something good out of the dead tree.
DEC 1 Z 2003
Ashland Creek Hydraulic investigation
October 13, 1997
Submitted to:
City of Ashland
Ashland, Oregon
Submitted by:
Otak, Inc.
17355 SW Boones Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
(503) 635-3618
DEC 1% 2{303
Other areas were not considered for possible improvements due to the relatively
minor impact of flooding or the impracticality of replacing a structure or widening
the creek for a relative minor amount of flood damage reduction. The priority
projects listed above are based on a subjective but none-the-less deterministic
r~nMng system.
Potential Ashland Creek Improvements
Calle Guanajuato Reach
The conceptual improvement to the Calte Guanajuato reach includes widening the
creek by ten feet on the left bank (looking downstream) and constructing a low
floodwall on the fight bank. The wider chsnuel width would be designed, taking
into account environmental and aesthetic concerns. This improvement would be
required through the entire Calle Guanajuato reach. The floodwall would be located
on the west edge of the Calle Guanajuato and would range fi:om i to 3.5 feet in
height, with an average of two feet above the existing street grade. The freeboard
on the proposed floodwall ranges between 0.6 feet and 3.0 feet, with an average
freeboard of 1.5 feet.
At the extreme lower end of the Calle Guanajuato, a seven-foot-high floodwall would
be necessary due to the low street elevation at this point (low point of approximately
1875 feet) and to contain the backwater from the Main Street Bridge. At this end
(north) of the Calle Guanajuato, the lower buildings would be flooded due to
backwater fi:om M~in Street ffthe higher floodwall were not constructed. With a
proposed 100-year water surface elevation of 1881.9 at cross section 95+38 where
the lower retaining wall begins, the following businesses would have first finished
floor elevations below the Main Street Bridge backwater elevation: Munchies
(finished floor elevation of 1873.5 feet), Greenleaf Restaurant (elevation of 1878.6
feet), The Blacksheep (elevation of 1880.9 feet), and Players Bar (elevation of 1875.4
feet), Rare Earth (elevation of 1876.2 feet), and American Trails (elevation of 1879.0
feet).
The floodwall could be a permanent or a temporary structure (to be put in place in
the fall and removed the following spring). It is noted that the City of Portland has
recently added a structure of this type along the downtown sea wall. An example of
a temporary structure would be reinforced concrete sections placed into slotted
concrete posts. The concrete panels could be put in storage during the summer.
Included with this improvement would be a new replacement pedestrian bridge to
span the wider creek. It is recommended that the existing creek banks in the Calle
Guanajuato be restored in locations where the gn~te bank protection is failing.
The hydraulic model was modified to incorporate Calle Guanajuato reach
improvements and was evaluated with the proposed new Con-Span Bridge in
Winburn Way. Figure 10 indicates the water surface profile comparison between
the existing conditions and proposed modifications (i.e., enlarged creek channel cross
Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation 17
P:-~RO~7 ~0~.7 ~A.qYD P.A UL~A~ H L~ND~. W pD otak
.......... 11111
section, floodwall, longer pedestrian bridge, and the proposed Winburn Way Con-
Span Bridge). It is noted that the existing conditions include the previous Winburn
Way Culvert in place as it was before the January 1997 flood event. Figure 11 is a
plan view showing the lateral extent of flooding with the proposed improvements in
place.
Table D-3 shows the proposed water surface elevations and associated hydraulic
parameters of the Calle Guanajuato improvements with the proposed new Winburn
Way Bridge versus existing conditions. The proposed improvements to Calle
Guanajuato do not affect the creek downstream of Main Street or upstream of
Winburn Way.
The proposed Calle Guanajuato modifications (widening of the creek and floodwall)
will lower the 100-year flood event water surface elevation by an average of 0.9 feet
between Winburn Way and the location of the existing pedestrian bridge, as
compared to existing conditions. Between the existing pedestrian bridge and Main
Street, the change in water surface elevation is typically increased by 1.2 feet due to
the increased amount of flow passing through the proposed Winburn Way Bridge.
Lithia Way Culvert and Bluebird Park Reach
The high water surface elevations in the Bluebird Park vicinity between the Lithia
Way Culvert and Main Street are mainly to the culvert under Lithia Way and the
restriction of the creek caused by the existing restaurants and the 31 Water Street
building. The recommended improvement to Bluebird P~k is to replace the 18-foot-
wide by 9-foot-high Lithia Way Culvert with a 30-foot-wide by 10-foot~high arch
culvert. Other recommended improvements include widening the creek channel
upstream and downstream of the culvert to maintain the efficiency of the larger
culvert. Removal of the 31 Water Street building was also studied in the model.
The hydraulic model was modified to reflect these proposed improvements.
Modificaiions to the Bluebird Park reach have no effect on the water surface
elevation downstream of the Lithia Way Culvert or upstream of Main Street. These
proposed improvements will affect the right overbank flow downstream of Lithia
Way Culvert, with less overbank flow occurring due to the increased hydraulic
capacity of the larger culvert. Figure 12 indicates the water surface profile with the
conceptual improvements compared to the existing conditions water surface profile.
Also a plan view (see Figure 11) is shown indicating the lateral extent of flooding
due to the improvements. It can.be readily seen that the lateral extent of flooding
with these proposed improvements does not change significantly (except for the
location of the 31 Water Street building) as compared to reductions in 100-year
water surface elevations that are achieved by the proposed improvements. Table D-
4 (located in Appendix D) shows the hydraulic parameters of the proposed Bluebird
Park improvements as compared with ,the existing channel conditions.
Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation
18
otak
2003
3O
187t.39
s.walk
N60'13'28"E 154.58'
P ~
Shasta Building
Exterior Colors
12/10/03
Body Color:
Backpack #8664M- Miller Paints
Trim Colors:
Greylock #8645D- Miller Paints
Primary trim including a band around
the top of the building.
Blacksmith #8776N- Miller Paints
A second trim band above the primary trim,
overhang and windows.
Tattersall Brown #8215D- Miller Paints
Some doors and small details
This color is to indicate brick trim above and
Below windows and on the front of the building.
Colors selected by Judy Howard from Hanson Howard Design.
DEC 1 Z ZOO3
IEXHIBIT ~' I
.I.181HX~!1
Th~. Ashland Planning Department prelimin; '~ppmved this*, request
:on' December;24, 2003.":This action will be '~ =viewed bythe Ashland
Planning'Commission'Hearings Board at 1:30 p.m. on January 13,
2004 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon. No public testimony is allowed at this review.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning
commission on this action.
To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in
the Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on
January 5, 2004. The written request for the public hearing must
include your name, address, the file number of the planning action and
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or
modified, based on the applicable criteria. If you do not
SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and
date stated above, there will be no public testimony permitted.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at ~41-r-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~52-2041.
· If shearing is reques~ ~ it will be scheduled for the following month.
· :-Unless there is a co~ ance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the heanng, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the headng.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to Ihis notice. Oregon
law sates that failure to raise an objection concerning INs application, either in person o~
by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
of Appeals (LUBA) on that Issue. Failure to specify which ordinance c,~e~ion the o~jecaon
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 cimuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and
applicable criteria are available for InspectJon 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 heating and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development
and Engineering Sen/ices, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
Our TrY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard bY the Ashland Historic Commission on January 7, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
NOTE: Public comment concerning the Project's landscaping plan will be taken on January 8, 2004 between 2:30
and 4:00p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering building located at 51 Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-003 is a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to permit the
conversion of a non-conforming structure into a studio apartment for the property located 987 Siskiyou
Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39
1E 10 CB; Tax Lot 6600.
APPLICANT: Marc and Aaron Heller
.18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall b~ used to approve or
deny an application:
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)
_COND~'T~'OI~L .USE PEI~TT~.
18.104.050 &pproval Criter~z. A conditional use permit shall be
granted if the approVal authority finds that the proposed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the:use would be in conformance with all standards
within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in conformance'with 'relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal.
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,
paved access to and through ~he development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse
material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed uSe
on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of
the zone:
Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets· Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
of facilities.
Architectural compatibility with the impact
area.
Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other.~environmental
pollutants.
Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan'
Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
Application:
Date:
Applicants:
Partition Data:
Conditional Use Permit for
conversion of existing garage into
studio apartment
December 12, 2003
Marc and Aaron Heller
824 Holton Rd
Talent, OR 97540
535-3366
Location:
987 Siskiyou Blvd.
Legal: 39-1E-10CB, Tax Lot 6600
Zoning: R-I, with a conditional use permit allowing
use as a Chiropractic office.
Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion
of existing non-conforming structure into a studio
apartment.
Existing requirements: 6' setback from prop line
Existing Setback of non-conforming structure: 18"
Current use of property: 2300 sq. ft Chiropractic office, main floor,
2 basement apartments 300 sq. ft each.
Proposed use of property: Additional 315 sq. ft studio apartmem in
existing non-conforming structure.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPAk~ MENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL~
For Marc H¢llcr
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 1 of 12
12/11/2003
18.104.050
Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit
shall be granted if the
approval authority finds that
the proposed use conforms,
or can be made to conform
through the imposition of
conditions, with the
following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in
conformance with all
standards within the zoning
district in which the use is
proposed to be located, and
in conformance with
relevant Comprehensive
plan policies that are not
implemented by any City,
State, or Federal law or
program.
B. 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.
C. That the conditional use
will have no greater adverse
material effect on the
livability of the impact area
when compared to the
development of the subject
lot with the target use of the
zone. When evaluating the
effect of the proposed use on
the impact area, the
following factors of
livability of the impact area
1. Similarity in scale, bulk,
and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and
effects on surrounding
streets. Increases in
A. The proposed use conforms with all standards within this zoning
district.
B. The City facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate this
proposed Accessory Residential Unit.
C. See Below.
1. This proposed project is entirely remodeling of an existing
structure, with no additions, therefore no changes in scale, bulk, or
coverage is proposed.
e. The increase in vehicular traffic is a small impact on available
transit facilities. The building has existed with its current use for
over e0 years without any neighbor complaints or noticeable increase
in traffic in the area. It's parking lot is accessed through a neighbor
office's parking lot, through a wide alley, and empties into Siskiyou
Blvd. which is designed to allow a high volume of traffic. The
additional traffic this small residential unit will generate is negligible,
DEC 1 2003
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Marc Heller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 2 of 12
12/11/2003
pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transit use are
considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of
facilities.
~3. Architectural
compatibility with the
impact area.
4. Air quality, including the
generation of dust, odors, or
other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise,
light, and glare.
6. The development of
adjacent properties as
envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be
relevant by the Hearing
Authority for review of the
proPosed use.
18.72.070 Criteria
for Approval
The following criteria shall
be used to approve or deny
an application:
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.
(6 trips per day, according to city allowances) and will be further
mitigated by the fact that the residence will be located in such close
proximity to Sisk. Blvd. bus lines, it's new bike lanes, and Southern
Oregon University. This could potentially reduce traffic in the city
(albeit by I car) if the space is rented by an SOU student (if they do
have a car, what driving they do will be reduced, as they will most
likely walk to classes). The owner plans to take this into account
while considering prospective tenants.
$. The architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood.
Meetings with the Historic Commission were positive and agreeable
to this evaluation.
,~. There will be no pollutants generated by this development.
5. Noise, light, and glare will be controlled to not be objectionable.
6. The adjacent properties will be able to be developed according to
the comprehensive plan.
7. The setback requirements set out by the city are reasonable for
aesthetic as well as practical reasons (fire danger being one of them).
This building does not meet these requirement, as it was built in the
1950% perhaps before the lot was subdivided to its current size. It
should be allowed a conditional use permit, as the aesthetics will be
tasteful, and the safety issues will be addressed.
It's a very small building, set back from the street by over lO0'
and hidden by trees, so its proximity to the neighboring building is
not noticeable from Siskiyou Blvd.
The fire danger considerations will .be dealt with; its exterior is
coated with 1.5" of stucco and the window on the proximal side to the
neighboring office building will be covered up, as necessitated by fire
code.
A. The City ordinances applicable to the development will be met.
B. Site Review Chapter requirements will be met.
C. The Site Design Standards are complied with by this proposed
development.
For Marc'Heller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 3 of 12
12/11/2003
II-C-1. BASIC SITE
REVIEW STANDARDS
II-C- 1 a) Orientation and
Scale
1)
Buildings shall have
their primary
orientation toward the
street rather than the
parking area. Building
entrances shall be
oriented toward the
street and shall be
accessed from a public
sidewalk. Public
sidewalks shall be
provided adjacent to a
public street along the
street f~ontage.
2)
Buildings that are
within 30 feet of the
street shall have an
entrance for pedestrians
directly from the street
to the building interior.
This entrance shall be
designed to be attractive
and functional, and
shall be open to the
public during all
business hours.
3)
These requirements
may be waived if the
building is not accessed
by pedestrians, such as
warehouses and
industrial buildings
without attached
offices, and automotive
service uses such as
service stations and tire
stores.
II-C- 1 b) Streetscape
One street tree chosen
from the street tree list
shall be placed for each
30 feet of~ontage for
the
portion of the
1.The existing garage and garage door face Siskiyou Blvd. The
proposed remodeling will maintain the orientation of the front door
access toward the street and sidewalk.
~.The existing garage that is to be remodeled as proposed is farther
than so feet from the street.
$. N/A
II-C-lb)
One approved street tree will provided for each SO' of street frontage.
1. Landscaping is well established on entire property, and existing
landscaping will not be affected by development.
'l;
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Marc Heller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 4 of 12
12/11/2003
development fronting
the street.
II-C- 1 c) Landscaping
1)
Landscaping shall be
designed so that 50%
coverage occurs after
one year and 90%
coverage occurs after 5
years.
2)
Landscaping design use
a variety of low water
use deciduous and
evergreen trees and
shrubs and flowering
plant species.
3)
Buildings adjacent to
streets shall be buffered
by landscaped areas at
least 10 feet I width,
except in the Ashland
Historic District.
Outdoor storage areas
shall be screened from
view from adjacent
public rights-of-way,
except in M-1 zones.
Loading facilities shall
be screened and
buffered when adjacent
to residentially zoned
land.
4) Irrigation systems shall
be installed to assure
landscaping success.
5) Efforts shall be made to
save as many existing
healthy trees and shrubs
on the site as possible
II-C- 1 d) Parking
1)
Parking areas shall be
located behind
buildings or on one or
both sides.
2)
Parking areas shall be
shaded by deciduous
trees, buffered from
adjacent non-residential
uses and screened from
non-residential uses.
e. Landscaping complies With this requirement (see accompanying
landscape map, or visit on foot)
& Building lies in Historic District, yet complies with this 10' of
landscape requirement.
· . Landscaping has existing drip and low volume sprinklers set on an
automatic timer system.
1. Parking is behind the buildings.
Parking areas are shaded by deciduous trees. See landscape map.
N/A
For Marc Heller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 5 of 12
12/11/2003
II-C- 1 e) Designated Creek
Protection
1)
Designated creek
protection areas shall be
considered positive
design elements and
incorporated in the
overall design of a
given project.
2)
Native riparian plant
materials shall be
planted in and adjacent
to the creek to enhance
the creek habitat.
II-C-10 Noise and Glare
Special attention to
glare (AMC 18.72.110)
and noise (AMC
9.08.170(c) & AMC
9.08.175) shall be
considered in the
project design to ensure
compliance with these
standards.
II-C- lg) Expansions of
Existing Sites and Buildings
For sites which do not
conform to these
requirements, an equal
percentage of the site
must be made to
comply with these
standards as the
percentage of the
building expansion,
e.g., if building area is
to expand by 25%, then
25% of the site must be
brought up to the
standards required by
this document.
II-C-1O
Glare and noise will be controlled to comply the appropriate AMC
requirements.
N/A
DEC 1 13 2003
ASHLAND PLAIqlqiNG DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Marc Heller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 6 of 12
12/11/2003
D. PARKING LOT
LANDSCAPING AND
SCREENING
STANDARDS
Il-D- 1) Screening and
Required Yards
1)
Parking abutting a
required landscaped
l~ont or exterior yard
shall incorporate a sight
obscuring hedge screen
into the required
landscaped yard.
2)
The screen shall grow
to be at least 36 inches
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.
4)
Elevated parking lots
shall screen both the
parking and the
retaining wall.
II-D-2) Screening and
Abutting Property Lines
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.
II-D-3) Landscape
Standards:
1) Parking lot landscaping
shall consist of a
1) Hedge screen exists (see accompanying map).
~)Hedge materiel is approx. 8' higher than parking lot grade.
$)N/A
{)N/A
II-D-e) Five foot landscaped strip exists (see drawings).
1) Parking lot complies with this.
e) Most existing parking lot trees are large and canopied; none have
damaged pavement or utilities. (see landscape drawing)
For Marc Heller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 7 of 12
12/11/2003
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
minimum of 7% of the
total parking area plus a
ration of 1 tree for each
seven parking spaces to
create a canopy effect.
The tree species shall be
an appropriate large
canopied shade tree and
shall be selected from
the street tree list to
avoid root damage to
pavement and utilities,
and damage from
droppings to parked
cars and pedestrians.
The tree shall be
planted in a landscaped
area such that the tree
bole is a least 2 feet
from any curb or paved
area.
The landscaped area
shall be planted with
shrubs and/or living
ground cover to assure
50% coverage within 1
year and 90% within 5
years.
Landscaped areas shall
be evenly distributed
throughout the parking
area and parking
perimeter at the
required ratio.
That portion of the
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 landscaping
required for interior
3) No new trees are planned, and current trees existed before land was used
as a parking lot in accordance with 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval: II-C-1 c-
5
"Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on
the site as possible."
Landscaped areas are mature and have almost complete coverage.
5) Parking lot complies with this.
6)Parking lot meets landscaping standards
Parking area is located closer than 8' from proposed residence, but no
windows are planned for this side, as it is the North face, and the
orientation of the building is South.
BEC 1 2003
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Marc Heller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 8 of 12
12/11/2003
parking stalls.
II-D-4) Residential
Screening
Parking areas adjacent
to residential dwelling
shall be set back as least
8 feet from the building,
and shall provide a
continuous hedge
screen.
II-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 groundcover in
the screen strip shall be
planted such that 100%
coverage is achieved
within 2 years.
II-D-6) Other Screening
1)
Other screening and
buffering 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 fi.om
five to eight feet in height.
All refuse materials shall be
contained within the refuse
area.
Service Corridor Screen:
When adjacent to residential
uses, commercial and
industrial service corridors
shall be screened. Siting
and design of such service
areas shall reduce that
adverse effects of noise,
odor and visual clutter upon
1) Parking lot is well screened (see landscape map)
~) Groundcover is well established and will not be affected by
development
1) A Refuse container screen will be build in accordance with this
regulation.
N/A
Owner will comply with this regulation
ASHLAND PLANNING DEP.~,..,MENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAk__.
For Marc H¢llcr
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 9 of 12
12/11/2003
Light and Glare Screen:
Artificial lighting shall be so
arranged and constructed as
to not produce direct glare
on adjacent residential
properties or streets.
E. STREET TREE
STANDARDS
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
feet 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 safety, affect
the decision. Any such
proposed special condition
shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and
approval. The placement,
spacing, and pruning of
street trees shall be as
follow:
a) Street trees shall be
placed at the rate of one tree
for every 30 feet of street
fxontage. Trees shall be
evenly spaced, with
variations to the spacing
permitted for specific site
limitations, such as
driveway approaches.
a) No new street trees shall be planted, according to this plan. If new
street trees are needed, please notify owner (as one tree was removed
by City during recent Siskiyou improvements, due to trauma
incurred, and/or proximity to existing driveway)
b) If city decides another street trees is required, planting of said tree
will be in accordance with this regulation.
2003
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Marc Heller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 10 of 12
12/11/2003
b) Trees shall not be planted
closer than 25 feet from the
curb line of intersections of
sweets or alleys, and not
closer than 10 feet from
private driveways (measured
at the back edge of the
sidewalk), fire hydrants, or
utility poles.
c) Street trees shall not be
planted closer than 20 feet to
light standards. Except for
public safety, no new light
standard location shall be
positioned closer than 10
feet to any existing street
tree, and preferably such
locations will be at least 20
feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted
closer than 2 % feet f~om the
face of the curb except at
intersections where it shall
be 5 feet fi'om the curb, in a
curb return area..
e) Where there are overhead
power lines, tree species are
to be chosen that will not
interfere with those lines.
f) Trees shall not be planted
within 2 feet of any
permanent hard surface
paving or walkway.
Sidewalk cuts in concrete
for trees shall be at least 10
square feet, however, larger
cuts are encouraged because
they allow additional air and
water into the root system
and add to the health of the
tree. Space between the tree
and such hard 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 feet above
street roadway surfaces.
c)
d) N/A
e) N/A
i) N/A
g) The owner will comply with this.
h) The proposed construction will not damage the trees.
'ASHLAND PLANNING DEP _.MENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITT i
For Marc H¢ller
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
Page 11 of 12
12/11/2003
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.
II-E-3)
REPLACEMENT OF
STREET TREES
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
Street trees shall conform to
the street tree list approved
by the Ashland Tree
Commission.
Criteria for
Approval
The following criteria shall
be used to approve or
deny an application:
D. That adequate capacity of
II-E-s) N/A
II-E-,~) The existing fir tree is not on the approved list but is located
in an area that will pose no threat/damage to the street or proposed
improvements.
D. City facilities are directly adjacent to the property, in the street,
and are adequate to service the new Accessory Residential Unit.
DEC 1 2 2003
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL Page 12 of 12
For , Marc Heller 12/11/2003
987 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, Oregon
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. All
improvemems in the street
right-of-way shall comply
with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance
Standards Options. (Ord.
2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6,
1999)
office
~ign
side
walk
Norway maple) ~
Acer Platanoi~es
hybridus
Sisk.
Salvia
Buxus
Cornus
Liquidumbar
Styraci f lua
Prunus Cerasifera
yp~ericum calycinium
Dyopyrus Kaki
{persimmon}
Psudot~
Mensiesii
Lauroceracus
(~lieh La~rel}
Iris xyphium
Polygala Chameabuxus
iHedera
Helix
Syrin~ia
Vul~ari s
Philidelphius
Coronarius
Baw~usa
i Cal
Chamaeb~us
Photinea
Fraseri
Vinka
Major
:hodedenron
Nacrophylum
'Hedera Helix {ivy)
Camellia Sasenqua
Macrophytum
~ Pr~s ~Yle~ica~
( Nalus Florib~uda
Clavennae
Rosa Gall/ca
Of ficianalis
~o
Fi,~EI'IODEL EXISTIN~ ~AI~.A~E 5TRUCTUIRE INTO A ~,TUI~IO ,&,PT.
\~Db\cad;
12/12/'2003 12:0~:54 plvl, 1:1
I~iEMO~EL EXISTING GAI~.,~E 5TRUCTUI~E INTO ,~ 5TUIDIO APT.
M4,FBf(. WIELLEFR (F:'WIC~E - (D41)
~ ne/~smano ~anmng Department preliminarily approved this.request
:on Decembpr 24, 2003.h-This action will be 'revieWed bythe Ashland
Planning-Commission'Hearings Board at 1:30 p.m. onJanuary 13,
2004 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon. No public testimony is allowed at this review.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning
Commission on this action.
To exercise'this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in
the Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, pdor to 3:00 p.m. on
January.5, 2004. The written request for the public he,ring must
include your name, ad.dress, the file number of the planning a~tion and
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or
modified, based on the applicable criteria. If you do not
SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and
date stated above~ there will be no public testimony permitted
If you have questions er c~mments concerning this request, please feel free te contact
Susan Yates at ~e Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552-2041.
If:a hearin9 is requested, it will be scheduled for the following m~nth.
: unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the headng, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the hearing.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection com:eming this application, either In person or
by letter, er faaure to provide sufficlent specificity to afford the decision maker an
is based on also precludes your dght of appeal to LUBA o~t that criterion. Failure of the
with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an
^ copy oflhe applicat~m, ail documents and evldence relied upm bythe applicant and
applicable criteria am available for inspeclion at no cost and will be provided at
seven days pdof to the headng and will be Ixovided at reasomflfle cost, if requested. NI
materials are available at lhe Ashland Planning Department, Community Development
and Engineering Services, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on January 7, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-007 is a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to operate the
existing residence located at 185 North Pioneer as a vacation h~3me rental (i.e. one-unit hotel/motel).
ComprehensiVe Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax Lot:
12400.
APPLICANT: Deborah' DeLaunay
J8.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or
deny an application:
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)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 '&pproval Criter~. A conditional use permit shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the Proposed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the:use would be in conformance with all standards
within the'zoning district in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal
law or program. ·
B. 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.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse
material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use
on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of
the zone:
7o
Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
of facilities.
Architectural compatibility with the impact
area.
Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other-~environmental
pollutants. -
Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
Findings of Fact
Conditional Use Permit
and Site Review for
Hotel/Motel use of a Single Family Residence
in
Zone C-1 Historic District
Subject Property:
185 N. Pioneer
Assessor's Map 391E009BB Tax Lot 12400
Submitted to:
City of Ashland Planning Department
Submitted for:
Deborah Delaunay
Prepared by:
Carlos Delgado
Carlos Delgado Architect
545 A Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
12/12/03
Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
2/13/03
Planning Commission and
Ashland Planning Department
City of Ashland
Re:
Site Review, Conditional Use Findings of Fact
Project:
Hotel/Motel Use of Existing Residence
185 N. Pioneer Street
Ashland, Oregon
Zoning: C-1
Applicant: Deborah Delaunay
This request is being submitted for a Conditional Use Permit for the use of
a significantly historically contributing residence as a vacation home rental.
The following findings demonstrate the compatibility of this proposed use
and furthermore it's benefit to the surrounding neighborhood.
The relevant Ordinance Sections and Design Standards for Conditional
Use Permit are described in the following 'Findings of Fact'.
Findings by the Applicant/Agent are inserted immediately following each
section of the ordinance.
Respectfully,
Carlos Delgado
Architect
2
~Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
Following are the Chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and
sections of the Design Standards deemed applicable, in whole or in part, to
this Site Review & Conditional Use application:
ORDINANCES
Page
18.104 - Conditional Use Permits
18.32 - Retail Commercial District
18.61 -Tree Preservation and Protection
18.68 - General Regulations
18.70 - Solar Access
18.72 - Site Design & Use Standards
18.92 - Off-Street Parking
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
Section II -Approval Standards and Policies
A. Ordinance Landscaping Requirements
4
7
10
11
13
13
14
2O
20
C. Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development
1. Basic Site Review
D. Parking lot Landscaping and
Screening Standards
E. Street Tree Standards
Section III - Water Conserving landscaping
Guidelines and Policies
Section IV- Historic District Development
20
21
22
24
25
EXHIBITS: A) Site Plan Sheet
B) Floor Plans
C) Parking Lease letter of Intent
D) Photos
[3elaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
Chapter 18.104 - Conditional Use Permits
18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally
Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter
provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits
are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use
may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
This Conditional Use Permit application for allowing vacation home use of the
existing residence. Under section 18.32.030 this use is an approved conditional use
as a hotel in the C-1 zone.
18.104.030 Procedure
An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the
subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied
by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the
requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter
18.108 of this Title.
18.104.040 Plan Requirements
A. The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall inclUde thb following
information:
1. Vicinity map.
2. North arrow.
3. Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property.
4. Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of ail lot lines.
5. Location and use of ali buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and
schematic architectural elevations of ail proposed structures.
6. Location of all parking areas, parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic
circulation for the subject property.
7. Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed.
8. A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals o f five feet or less.
9. Approximate location of all existing natural features in areas which are planned to be
disturbed, including, but not limited to, alt existing trees of greater than six inch dbh,
any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of
rocks or boulders.
Complies: See drawings provided with this submittal. This historically contributing
residence will not incur any exterior changes.
B. An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently
with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18. 72. The
provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan
requirements of Section 18. 72. 040for site design approval.
4
~elaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
r'l
This request for a Conditional Use Permit for hotel use is made concurrently with a
Site Review for the parking requirements and parking spaces provided explained
under section 18.92 of this application.
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions,
with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law
or program. ~
Complies: The proposed use is in conformance with all standards within the C-1
zoning district. As stated in Section 18.32.010 under the purpose of the C-1 District:
"This district is designed to stabilize, improve, and protect the characteristics
of those areas providing commercial commodities and services". This
application is a request a "commercial" use of an existing beautiful, significant
historically contributing residence to provide such commodities and services. In its
existing state as a single family residence, its current use is actually non-conforming
to its district.
n
The use of the building as a commercial enterprise a vacation home (classified
as a hotel/motel under this zone) renders a more compatible use in the C-1
zone. The applicant has made all efforts possible to alleviate the potential increase
in automobile parking demand by securing a parking arrangement with a local
church (refer to Section 18.92) and requests these considerations above an beyond
the required on-site and provided on-site parking.
B. 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.
n Complies: Adequate capacity of City facilities exist.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livabiIity
of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject tot with the target
use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
foltowing factors of tivabitity of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the
target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
Complies: There are no proposed changes to the exterior of the residence. The
proposed hotel use does not change the exterior of the building.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
5
Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
Complies: As provided in the findings for Off Street Parking requirements, the
applicant (as the owner of the residence) will secure 2 parking spaces for her use as
the owner to service and maintain the hotel use of the residence. Thus alleviating
any further parking demand on the property if she is called to the site during use of
the residence as a hotel. Otherwise, the 2 provided parking spaces are sufficient for
the uses proposed.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
Complies: The residence is a prized historically contributing building that will attract
guest use and further the appreciation of historically compatible homes in this
district.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
a Complies: Air quality will not be impacted - no construction is proposed.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
Complies: Noise, light, and glare will not be increased to any greater than by a
single-family residence. Clientele will be of similar use as a single family residence.
Existing exterior lights and entry lights will not be changed.
The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Complies: The proposed use of this site will have no impact on the future
development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the comprehensive plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
18.104.060 Conditions
The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to
the following:
A. Regulation and limitation of uses.
B. Special yards, spaces.
C. Fences and walls.
D. Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets and sidewalks and
bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such
improvements.
E. Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress.
F. Regulation of signs.
G. Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features.
H. Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase
'~Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
compatibility with adjoining uses.
I. Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances.
J. Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities.
K. The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed.
L. Duration of use.
M. Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space.
N. Any condition permitted by Section 18. 72, Site Design.
O. Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly
and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title.
18.104.070 Revocation; Abandonment
Unless a longer period is specifically allowed by the approval authority, any conditional
use permit approved under this .section, including any declared phase, shall be deemed
revoked if the proposed use or phase is not commenced within one year of the date of
approval. A use or phase shall not be considered commenced until the permittee has
actually obtained a building permit and commenced construction or has actually
commenced the conditional use on the premises. If the permit requires site design
approval under Chapter 18. 72, the permit shall be deemed revoked if the use or phase is
not developed within one year of the date of site design approval. A conditional use is
deemed void if discontinued or abandoned for a period ofs/x consecutive months. (Ord.
2228, 1982; Ord. 2656, 1991; Ord. 2775. 1996)
Chapter 18.32- Retail Commercial District
18.32.010 Purpose
This district is designed to stabilize, improve and protect the characteristics of those
areas providing commercial commodities and services.
18.32.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service
establishments such as beauty and barber shops, launderette, and clothes and laundry
pick-up stations.
B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a
department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and including a regional shopping
center or element of such center, such as a major department store.
C. Restaurants. (Oral 2812, S2 1998}
D. Theaters, but not including a drive-in.
E. Manufacture or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such
manufacturing or assembly occupies six hundred {600) square feet or less, and is
contiguous to the permitted retail outlet.
F. Mortuaries and crematoriums.
G. Printing, publishing, lithography, xerography, copy centers.
H. Temporary tree sales, from November 1 to danuary 1.
7
Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
I. Public and quasi-public utility and seruice buildings, and public parking lots, but
excluding electrical substations.
J. Kennels and ueterinary clinics, with all animals housed within structures.
Nightclubs and Bars. Except as provided in 18.32.030, howeuer, no nightclub or bar is
permitted within the Historic Interest Area unless it is located in the ~D'~ Downtown
Ouerlay District. (Ord 2812, S2 1998)
Not Applicable. None of these uses are proposed.
18.32. 025 Special Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the
requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18. 72, Site Design and Use
Standards.
A. Commercial laundry, cleaning and dyeing establishments.
1. Alt objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which
the use is located, to the greatest extent feasibte. For the purposes of this provision, the
standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an auerage, reasonable
person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the
neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected.
2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
B. Bowling alleys, auditoriums, skating rinks, and miniature golf courses. If parking
areas are located within 200' o. fa residential district, they shall be shielded from
residences by a fence or solid uegetatiue screen a minimum of 4' in height.
C. Automobile fuel sales, and automobile and truck repair facilities. These uses may
only be located in the Freeway Ouerlay District as shown on the official zoning map.
~ Not Applicable. None of these uses are proposed.
D. Residential uses.
1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground.floor, or at least 50% of the
total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special
permitted uses, excluding residential.
Not Compliant: Existing use of the existing historically contributing building is used
as a residence. Proposed use is as a commemial enterprise as vacation home.
2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District,
and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District.
Complies.
3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design
standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District.
Not applicable: Existing setbacks landscape and design to remain as is.
Of.f-street parking shall not be required ]'or residential uses in the C-1-D District.
*"Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
Not Applicable. Not in C-1-D zone.
5. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential
units shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord with the standards
established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in
the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to
the nearest whole unit.
o Not Applicable.
E. Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows:
Not Applicable. No drive-up uses are proposed.
18.32. 030 Conditional Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in
accordance with the chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A. Electrical substations.
B. Automobile fuel sales, and automobile and truck repair facilities, except as allowed as
a special permitted use in 18.32. 025.
C. New and used car sales, boat, trailer, and recreational vehicles sales and storage
areas, except within the Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Hotels and motels.
Hotel/Motel use proposed in this application. Refer to previous Section 18.104
E. Temporary uses.
F. Outdoor storage of commodities associated with a permitted, special permitted or
conditional use.
G. Hostels, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least
the first three years, after which time the Planning Commission may approve, under a
Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility.
H. Building material sales yards, but not including concrete or asphalt batch or mixing
plants.
I. Churches or similar religious institutions.
18.32.040 General Regulations
A. Area, Width, Yard Requirements. There shall be no lot area, width, coverage, front
yard, side yard, or rear yard, except as required under the Off-Street Parking and Solar
Access Chapters; where required or increased for conditional uses; where required by
the Site Review Chapter or where abutting a residential district, where such setback
shall be maintained at ten feet per story for rear yards and ten feet for side yards.
Complies: The proposed building meets these requirements and does not abut a
residential district.
Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
B. Maximum Building Height. No structure shall be greater than 40feet in height.
Complies: Existing building height to the highest point of the roof is 28'.
18.32.050 "D" Downtown Overlay District
A. In all areas within the "D" Downtown Overlay District, alt uses are not required to
provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotel, motel, or hostel uses. All
parking areas provided shall comply with the Off-Street Parking chapter and the Site
Review chapter.
Not applicable: Site is not within Overly District.
B. Structures which are greater than 40feet in height, but less than 55feet, may be
permitted as a conditional use.
Not Applicable. No new structure or modification proposed.
Chapter 18. 61 - Tree Preservation and Protection
18. 61. O10 Purpose
18.61.030 Regulated Activities
A. Ali tree removal and tree topping activities, unless exempted below, shall be carried
out in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
Not applicable: All existing trees to remain as is.
B. No person who is required to install or maintain tree protection measures pursuant
this chapter shall do any development activities including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work on a property or site which requires a planning
action without approved tree prOtection measures properly installed and maintained
pursuant to this Chapter.
Not applicable.
10
~Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
Chapter 18. 68 - General Regulations
18. 68. 010 Fences
Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards:
A. In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half(3 %) feet
in height.
Complies: Existing planting does not exceed 42" in height.
B. In any rear or side yards provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 ~) feet in
height.
C. The height offences or walls in rear or side yard setback areas abutting a public
street shall be forty-eight (48) inches or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10)
feet of any public street except an alley.
D. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's
property, except where fences are jointly constructed.
E. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (5%)percent.
In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the
Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem.
The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or
on its own action.
n Not Applicable. No fences are proposed and no hedges are proposed in the rear or
side yard setback areas.
18. 68. 020 Vision Clearance Area
Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing the
size of the vision clearance area:
A. In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25)feet or, at
intersections including an alley, ten (1 O)feet.
Not Applicable. Property in not within any R district.
B. In all other districts except the C-1 and E-1 districts, the minimum distance shall be
fifteen (15)feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10)feet. When the angle of
intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the
distance shall be twenty-five (25)feet.
Not Applicable. Property is located in the C-1 district.
C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or
temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding two and one-half(2 %) feet in height,
measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be
located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight
(8)feet above the grade.
11
Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the
Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2605, S1, 1990)
Not Applicable.
18.68.030 Access
Each lot shall abut a minimum width of forty (40)feet upon a public street (other than an
alley). This requirement may be decreased to twenty-five (25)feet on a cul-de-sac vehicle
turn-around area. Except with an approved flag partition, no tot shall abut upon a street
for a width of less than twenty-five (25)feet.
Complies: Existing lot has 60' frontage min. on both streets.
18.68. 050 Special Setback Requirements
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on
streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual
widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof,
shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line
separating the tot from the street.
Street Setback
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way 35feet
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskyou Boulevard 65feet
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty
(20)feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district.
Exempt. Not on aforementioned streets
18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Not Applicable. No accessory buildings or structures are proposed.
8.68.160 Drivetvay Grades
Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of
the driveway. Alt driveways shall be designed in accord with the criteria of the Ashland
Public Works Department and approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
new construction. If required by the City, the developer or owner shall provide
certification of driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. All vision clearance
standards associated with driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to
the Variance section of this title. {Ord. 2604 S2, 1990; Ord. 2663 S3, 1992)
Complies: Existing driveway does not exceed 20%.
12
"Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
Chapter 18. 70 - Solar Access
Complies. Solar access is not required over street frontage on B Street
Chapter 18. 72 - Site Design & Use Standards
18.72. 040 Approval Process
18. 72. 050 Detail Site Review Zone
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards
adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.080.
B. Any development in the detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review
Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 1 O, 000 square feet or is
longer than l OO feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2
procedure.
Not applicable: No new square footage proposed.
18. 72.070 - Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
Complies: All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met for this
development. Findings for the applicable ordinances are included herein.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
Complies: All applicable requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been or will
be met. See findings for the Site Review Chapter herein.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
n Complies: The development complies with the applicable Site Design Standards.
See findings for the Sited Design Standards herein.
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. Alt improvements in the
street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88,
Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
n Complies: Adequate capacity exists for all facilities.
13
Ii;)elaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
18. 72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use
Standards
Not Applicable. No Administrative Variance is being requested.
18. 72.115 - Recycling Requirements
All commercial and multi-family developments, requiring a site review as indicated in
18. 72.040, shatl provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants.
A. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid u~aste receptacle shall provide
a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste
receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid, u~aste franchisee under
its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle
site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping
such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or pubtic rights-of-way.
Complies: Trash and recycling are located in a screened area on west side (refer to
site plan)
B. Multi-Family Residential...
Not Applicable.
18. 72.120 Controlled access
A. Prior to any partitioning of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-I, E-1 or M-1 zone,
controlled access standards shall be applied and, if necessary, cross easements shall
be required so that access to all properties created by the partitioning can be made from
one or more points.
Not Applicable. No partition is to oCcur.
Chapter 18.92 - Off-Street Parking
18.92.010 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.
18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required
Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the fotlotoing automobile parking spaces are
required.
14
,,Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following
.for accessory residential units:
a. S~udio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.--1 space/unit.
b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger-l.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units-I. 75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units-2. O0 spaces/unit.
2. Multi-family dwellings.
a. ~'tudio units or l-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.--1 space/unit.
b. 1-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. O0 spaces/unit.
e. 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 dormitories, 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.
D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following
automobile parking spaces are required.
1. Child care centers having 13 or more children. One space per two employees; a
minimum o.f two spaces is required.
2. Churches. One space per four seats.
3. Golf courses, except miniature. Eight spaces per hole, plus additional spaces .for
auxiliary uses set.forth in this section. Miniature golf courses -.four spaces per hole.
E. 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.
F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces
provided by any particular use in ground surface lots 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.
Complies: The site has 2 parking spaces available. Planning staff has ascertained
one parking space onsite on the driveway off of B street (northwest corner) and one
on street credit for more than 48 feet of uninterrupted curb length along Pioneer
Street. Under Item 4 above (for Hotel / motel use) One space for each guest room,
plus one space for the owner or manager is provided under the assumption that the
upper floor of the residence is to be considered a rentable hotel unit to a single
party.
18.92.025 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking
Credit for on- street parking = 1 space. Planning staff has ascertained one on street
credit for more than 48 feet of uninterrupted curb length along Pioneer. The
applicant is accepting this credit. Furthermore, as a measure to relieve the potential
0elaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
increase in parking demand on the site, under section 18.92.060, the applicant is
requesting consideration for use of a parking facility in the neighborhood (refer to
findings below).
18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places
Complies: One (1) Disabled parking space has been provided and has been located
as close to the main entrance as possible. This requires one disabled parking
space as 1space/25spaces is the requirement
18.92. 040 Bicycle Parking
A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-1-
D zone, shattprovide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
Complies. Bicycle parking is provided on the west side of the residence in a fenced
and protected area.
B. 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 1-bedroom unit
1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit
2. 0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit
Not Applicable.
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking
Exempt: No compact car parking is proposed.
18.92.060 Limitations, Location,~. Use of Facilities
A. Location. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile
parking facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel
is within 200feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parking
lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking
space to an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other
pedestrian path separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site
parking must be evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written
instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the use.
Applicant's proposal: Permission to park in a neighborhood church parking lot has
been granted by the pastor (letter of intent to lease 2 parking spaces to the applicant
enclosed in this submittal - Refer to exhibit B). The applicant requests that a formal
parking lease agreement from the church be a condition of approval for this
application. The distance to the church parking lot exceeds 200 feet (distance = 2
16
'~,Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
blocks). The church parking lot contains 24 parking spaces and the street frontage
allows for on street parking space credits. The pastor has indicated that much of
this neighborhood congregation w,~-~-Jo ~5~y_~c_~.
The use of the church is only on Friday eves and Sunday mornings. These two
time~rames are unlikely that the owner of the hotel will be in need of parking.
Service for arriving and departing guests would most likely be mid afternoon Fridays
and afternoon Sundays. For this reason, the pastor of the church is supporting use
of its parking lot. Furthermore, typical walking distance in this neighborhood is more
than a few blocks. It is a fair justification that most people who work in this area
(Downtown / Historic District) typically park further than 200 feet and walk to work.
The applicant is requesting that this is taken into consideration for For the use of the
house as a vacation 'house, the parking requirement under section 18.92.020 is one
space for the hotel unit and one space for the owner.
18.92.0 70 Automobile Parking Design Requirements
A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the
parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9
x 18feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with
18.92.050 and shall have a 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled.
Complies: The onsite parking space is 9' X 18' and is allowed' to have the backup
space into the street.
B. Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to
parking areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. 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 12feet.
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.
Not Applicable.
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 permanently marked
and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12
feet in width.
Not applicable.
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts.
a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by minor
land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway intersections with
17
Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining tots where feasible. In no case
shall driveways be closer than 24feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or
proposed apron wings of the driveway approach.
b. Plans f or property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family developments
shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the
use of shared driveways and shall indicate att necessary access easements.
c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway
approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed
development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or
sidewalk as appropriate. Ail replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering
Division.
Not Applicable.
C. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a
minimum vertical clearance ' ....
of 13 6 for thetr entwe length and width.
Complies: No obstructions occur in the parking area.
D. Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet
in height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the
triangle formed by a line connecting points 25feet from the intersection of property lines.
In the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a
tine connecting points ten (10)feet along the alley and 25feet along the street. When the
angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the
distance s-hall be 25feet. No signs, structures or vegetation or portion thereof shall be
erected within ten (10)feet of driveways unless the same is tess 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.
Complies: The existing street with the existing parking spaceS and the vision
clearances have been considered in the calculation for the on street parking credit.
E. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided
below, shall apply in ail cases, except single-family dwellings.
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 C-~ty Engineer.
Complies: Parking area is paved in concrete.
2. Drainage. Ali required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have provisions
made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet fiow of such waters
onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property.
Non-compliant: Parking area is as existing with no provisions for on site collection.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed
to standards on.file in the office of the City Engineer.
18
I;)elaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
Complies: Driveway apron is paved in concrete according to Public Works
Department standards.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently
and clearly marked.
Not applicable
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and
six feet itt length. They shall be Jirmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to
withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for ali spaces
abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public
right-of-way.
Not applicable. No wheel stops are to be provided.
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 ptanting 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 line shall be landscaped. Ail
vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent 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.
Not applicable.
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 institutions ....
Not Applicable. Not adjacent to any of these zones or uses.
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not
less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facitities, including the landscaping
required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed
throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or
raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related
material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required.
Not applicable: No parking area proposed.
8. Lighting of parking areas within 100feet of property in residential zones shall be
directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element
shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property.
Not Applicable. The proposed development is not within 100 feet of property in a
residential zone.
19
' ' D~launay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
SITB DBSIGN AND USB STANDARDS
SECTION II- APPROVAL STANDARDS & POLICIES
A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIRBMBNTS
Complies: 15% of this lot is required to be landscaped in the C-1 district. This
amounts to a 558 s.f. requirement for a 3720 SF lot. Total area of existing
landscape is 800s.f.
C. COMMERCIAL, BMPLOYMBNT, AND INDUSTRIAL DBVBLOPMBNT
II-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARDS: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall
conform to the following development standards:
II-C-la) Orientation and Scale
1)
Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the
parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be
accessed from a public sidewallc Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a
public street along the street frontage.
Complies: The primary orientation of this building is to Pioneer Street and with a
strong secondary orientation on B street.
Buildings that are within 30feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians
directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be
attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
Complies: The main first floor entrance and the entrance to the second floor vertical
circulation is oriented to the public sidewalk on Pioneer Street.
These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians,
such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and
automotive service uses such as service stations and tire stores.
Not Applicable.
H-C-lb) Streetscape
One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30feet of
frontage for the portion of the development fronting the street.
20
, ,,, Delaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
c~ Complies: Pioneer street frontage is 62'. Two street trees are required and two are
provided. B street frontage is 60'. Two street trees are required and two are
provided. See Site Plan.
II-C-1 c) Landscaping
1) Landscaping shall be designed So that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90%
coverage occurs after 5 years.
Complies: Landscaping is existing and meets this criteria. See Site Plan.
2) Landscaping design use a variety of tow water use deciduous and evergreen trees
and shrubs and flowering plant species.
Complies: Landscaping is existing and meets this criteria. See Site Plan.
Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least lO feet
in width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be
screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-1 zones. Loading
facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land.
Exempt: No landscape buffer is required for buildings in the Ashland Historic District.
Complies: Outdoor trash enclosure is screened as stated previously.
Exempt: There are no loading facilities proposed and therefor no screening is
required..
4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
Complies: Landscape irrigation system is existing and meets this criteria.
5} Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site
as possible
Complies: No modification is proposed to the structure nor the landscaping.
II-C-l d) Parking
1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
Complies: Parking area is located on one side of the building.
2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-
residential uses and screened from non-residential uses.
Complies: The parking area has a row of Cedar trees to the west of the parking area
to provide shading.
II-C-l e} Designated Creek Protection
21
I~elaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
1) Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and
incorporated in the overall design ofa given project.
2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to
enhance the creek habitat.
Not applicable.
II-C-lj~ Noise and Glare
Special attention to glare (AMC 18. 72.11 O) and noise (AMC 9. 08.170(c) & AMc
9. 08.175) shall be considered in the project design to ensure compliance with these
standards.
Complies: No new lighting is proposed.
II-C-l g) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site
must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of the building
expansion, e.g., if building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be
brought up to the standards required by this document.
Not applicable: No new construction proposed.
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: All development 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.
1I-E-1) Location for Street Trees
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 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers,
and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of
Community Development.
Complies: Existing mature street trees are located adjacent to the curb within the 6'
parkrow. Refer to site plan.
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 safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition
22
,.,,, D~launay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement,
spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows:
a. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30feet of street
frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing
permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches.
b. Trees shall not be planted closer than 25feet from the curb line of
intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than lO feet from private
driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), ]ire hydrants or
utility poles.
c. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20feet to light standards.
Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned
closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such
locations wilt be at least 20feet distant.
d. Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 ~ feet from the face of the curb
except at intersections where it shall be 5feet from the curb, in a curb
return area.
e. Wh~re there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that
will not interfere with those lines.
f. Trees shall not be planted within 2feet of any permanent hard surface
paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least
10 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow
additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the
tree. Space between the tree and such hard 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 12feet 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 Advison
Complies: Street trees are spaced in front of the building at an approximate spacing
of 20' along B street and about 15' along Pioneer Street (there is a limitation with
this small lot to place trees within the vision clearance area.) This reduced spacing
was necessary due to the location of the driveway. See Site plan.
II-E-3) Reptacement of Street Trees
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.
23
' 'D6launay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
Not applicable: No replacement trees proposed.
12/12/03
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree
Commission.
Not applicable: Street trees are existing.
SECTION III- WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
POLICIES
all
Complies: The majority of the landscape material plants used on the site are drought
tolerant and/or planted in the shade so as to evapo-transpiration. The irrigation
system is equipped with an automatic programmable controller. Existing sprinklers
are installed for water conservation and maximum efficiency.
24
· "Oetaunay - 185 N. Pioneer
Conditional Use Permit & Site Review - Findings of Fact
12/12/03
SECTION IV- HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by
the Planning and Historic Commissions for new development and renovation of existing
structures within the Historic District:
IV-C-I) Height
Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic period on and
across the street.
IV-C-2) Scale
Relate the size and proportions of the new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings.
IV-C-3) Massing
Break up uninteresting box-like forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on
most buildings from the historic period.
IV-C-4) Setback
Maintain the historic faqade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new
buildings in the same plane as the facades of the adjacent buildings.
IV-C-5) Roof Shapes
Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area.
IV-C-5) Rhythm of Openings
Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the faqade. Also
consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade.
IV-C-7) Platforms
The use of raised platforms is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older
buildings in Ashland.
IV-C-8) Directional Expression
Relate the vertical, horizontal or non-directionat faqade character of new buildings to the
predominant directional expression of nearby buildings.
IV-C-9) Sense of Entry
Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other
pronounced architectural forms.
IV-C-1 O} Imitations
Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For
new construction, traditional architecture that welt represents our own time, yet
enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used.
Not applicable: No new construction or renovation is proposed. Refer to photos
submitted (Exhibit B). In reference to all standards above (C-1 through C-10) The
photos demonstrate the Historical compatibility and Historical contribution to the
neighborhood.
25
_ tii
CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF ASHLAND
318 "B",Street, PO Box 959, A.~hl:~,a, OR 97520
Voice (541) 482-1561
Fax (541) 482-1638
E-Mail office~,cc-ashland.org
December 10, 2003'
Dear Deborah,
The Christian Church of Ashland will lease parking spaces from our lot to you, Deborah DeLaunay, for the
duration of the business as operating as an Inn. The space will be leased to you and your manager who
might be helping run the business. The total of spaces leased will be two (2)for the two (2).vehicles. The
lease is attached for your records. We are pleased to assist in the success of your new business.
Sincerely,
Jim Larsen- Pastor
J~y
2004
R ev ~w Booed
January 8th
January
January 2 2®
January 2 9th
Terry, ~~ ~
Terry, ~,~'~-- ~~
Terry, ~ ~