HomeMy WebLinkAboutBig Packet - PA 2004-002
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2004-002
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MUL TI-
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-1-D; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #:39 1E 09BB;
TAX LOTS: 9800
APPLICANT: LLOYD HAINES
5-18-04
5-13-04
5-18-04
5-12-04
4-23-04
4-15-04
3-12-04
3-9-04
3-9-04
3-9-04
3-5-04
1-9-04
1-7 -04
1-25-04 to
3-9-04
II
Council Communication
Supplemental Record of Applicant
Letter from Atty. Alan D. B. Harper addressing grounds for appeal
Letter from Atty. Lloyd M. Haines
Tidings Editorial 4.28.04
Letter from Upper Limb-It Tree Service
Letter and Packet from Landscape Architect John Galbraith
Lines, encumbrances.. .affecting title of property
Revised Maps provided by applicant's representatives
Notice of City Council Public Hearing and applicable criteria (mailed
4-28-04 )
Memo from Ashland Tree Commission
The Gateway Alder, ODOT Grove, Triple Maple, Trees of Ashland
Creek and the Shasta Building Project (submitted by Randall
Hopkins)
Notice of Appeal of PA2004-002 submitted by Randall Hopkins
Findings, Conclusions & Orders dated 3-9-04 and cover letter
Fax from ODOT re: landscape permit for new tree
Ashland Planning Commission Minutes
Staff Report & Staff Exhibit
Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing
criteria (mailed 2-18-04)
Applicant's Revised Findings, Drawings and Exhibits
Ashland Street Tree Commission Planning Application Review
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
A-1 - A-31
A-1 - A-4
A-5 - A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12 - A-22
A-23 - A-24
A-25 - A-31
1-3
4-5
6-63
64-69
70-78
79-82
83-91
92-106
and applicable 107-109
110-253
254
255-257
Miscellaneous Public Comments
258-279
1.I
CITY OF
ASHLAN.D
Council Communication
Title:
Synopsis:
On December 12, 2003, the applicant filed his request for the above referenced planning action. On
February 18, 2004, the application was deemed complete by staff. The 120-day limit runs on June 18,
2004. Should the hearing run long, the Council has the option of continuing the hearing to the June 1,
2004 meeting, with adoption of findings on June 15, 2004.
Appeal of Planning Action 2004-002, a request for Site Review and Tree
Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. ft. mixed use building at 88
North Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is
requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor.
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
Planning Department
May 18, 2004
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner ,&,POtJ ~
John McLaughlin, Director of Co . . y Development ~
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Reviews of the application were held in front of the Historic Commission on January 7, 2004 and in
front of the Tree Commission on January 8,2004 and additional review on March 4,2004. Their
comments are included in the record.. The Historic Commission recommended approval of the
application by unanimous vote. The Tree Commission recommended that specific conditions be
attached to the action, should it be ~pproved by the Planning Commission.
A public hearing was properly noticed and held in front of the full Planning Commission on March 9,
2004 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was submitted. The Planning Commission voted
to approve the action by a 7-1 vote.
After the close of the public hearing and vote by the Planning Commission, a 57-page document was
submitted to the City by Randall Hopkins (and copies may have been sent to Council members and Tree
Commission members) outlining alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations of the original planning
submittals. However, since the public hearing was closed, this information could not be included as part
of the record of this action, nor reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hopkins was informed that
this information could be used as the basis of an appeal to the City Council.
The Planning Commission adopted the findings supporting their decision to approve the application on
April 13, 2004, and the findings were mailed to the involved parties on April 15,2004. A timely appeal
was filed by Randall Hopkins on April 23, 2004. The appeal request stated five issues as the grounds
for the appeal:
1. Applicant has failed to comply with Section 18.61.200A2, 18.62.040H, 18.61.050, 18.112.090, and
1.08.020 of the Municipal Code, and has violated same.
r~'
II
1.I
2. Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable Criteria for Issuance of a Tree Removal permit under
18.61.080 of the Code and filed an incomplete 'application and evidence.
3. The proposed development fails to fulfill the City's Large Scale Development site standards.
4. Removal of the tree sought to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the City's site design standards.
5. Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings below in violation of Sec. 18.108.100 of the Code
The majority of these issues were not raised specifically with the Planning Commission to allow them an
opportunity to consider these issues in their review. The applicant's attorney has prepared a response to
these issues and it is included in the supplemental record (Section A). Further, the applicant and his
landscape architect and project architect have provided additional information addressing the issues
raised on appeal. Staff concurs with the applicant's attorney regarding the five grounds for appeal.
Regarding Obiections 1 and 2, we believe that the applicant has provided the necessary information and
evidence necessary.
Regarding Obiection 3 raised by the appellant, Staff reviewed this application as a new and separate
development of8,325 sq. ft. Section 18.72.050.B states:
"Any develooment (emphasis added) 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."
While this building may have common structural attachments to the adjoining building, it is not part of
the previous development of the adjacent historic structure. It is not an expansion of the adjacent
building but rather, the interior spaces, uses, and floors of the new development are independent of the
other buildings and it functions as a separate and independent development. We do not believe that this
application constitutes a development greater than 10,000 sq. ft.
Regarding Obiection 4, we believe that the retention of the alder tree precludes the reasonable use of the
property for commercial uses intended in the downtown commercial district. The applicant's findings
and testimony from the applicant's arborist indicate that essentially any structural development of the
property would negatively impact the Alder to the point where it is unlikely to survive, no matter the
limited nature of that structural development. Downtown design standards requiring buildings to be
constructed from up to the sidewalk for an active pedestrian environment and a compatible street fac;ade
further preclude the preservation of the alder.
Regarding Obiection 5, no evidence has been provided regarding any conflicts of interest in the previous
proceedings. Therefore, Staffhas no response to this objection.
The Tree Commission has submitted a memo to the Mayor and Council outlining their position on the
information submitted after the close of the Planning Commission hearing, and the difficulty in
reviewing the information.
Staff would concur with the difficulty in addressing substantive issues after the close of a public hearing.
The issues raised by Mr. Hopkins were submitted to the City after the close of the hearing, and the
Planning Commission could only consider that information placed before them while the hearing
process was open. Similarly, the Historic and Tree Commissions considered the information placed
before them during the hearing process. While the amount of-information submitted to the City was
~j.'
substantial, we cannot restart the process at the previous levels. The information submitted by Mr.
Hopkins provides a basis for his appeal, and the Council should carefully consider all submitted
evidence.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission found the project complied with the applicable ordinance requirements, and
approved the project by a 7-1 vote. After review of the new information and the concerns raised by the
appellant, Staff supports the decision of the Planning Commission and recommends the Council approve
the request with the attached conditions as stated in the findings on pages 71-78 of the record. The
Council may wish to attach other conditions that they deem relevant to the criteria for approval.
Attachments:
The packet is attached.
r.l'
II
If
1.I
7,..
~
~
~
:.~-
.J
. .
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P.
Gregory T. Hornecker
Robert L. Cowling
John R. Hassen
R. Ray Heysell
H. Scott Plouse
P. David Ingalls
Adam T. Stamper*
Joseph E. Kellerman
James A. Wallan
Benjamin M. Bloom
Attorneys at Law
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779-8900
Fax: (541) 773-2635
http://www.roguelaw.com
Charles E. Bolen
Alan D.B. Harper
Ryan J. Vanderhoof
Richard L. Billin
**Shane J. Antholz, LLM
Jesse A. Visser
Stefanie L. Burke
OJ Counsel- Fred M. Aebi
* Also admitted in California
**Also admitted in Washington
Retired - B. Kent Blackhurst
Ervin B. Hogan 1927 - 2000
May 12, 2004
Mayor Alan DeBoer
Ashland City Council Members
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Appeal of Planning Action 2004-002; Shasta Building Project
Located at 88 North Main Street
Dear Honorable Mayor DeBoer and Council Members:
This letter and the attached documents are offered in support of the above captioned
application and approval in this matter by the Planning Commission. This firm represents the
Applicant and owner of the property in this de novo review by the City Council.
The following attached documents address various modifications and changes which are
proposed by the Applicant addressing revised information or modified design elements in
relation to applicable City standards:
. Letter from Applicant Lloyd M. Haines
. Revised Plans and Architectural Drawings by Architect David Richardson. The revised
plans incorporate:
. Revisions to the plans involve a fixed bridge rather than a drawbridge located to
accommodate existing development on the property.
. A Inechanical room at baselnent level.
. Adjustments in the plans to further accommodate the existing maple tree. These include
reduction in the size of the deck and bringing it approximately 18 inches further away
from the creek and revisions to the grading plan to reduce soil removal within the tree's
root zone.
. Revisions to the plans more fully incorporate changes that were before and approved by
the Planning Commission, specifically the reduction in the cantilever to accommodate the
maple tree.
4 - I
I:
II
II
May 13, 2004
. The plans were also revised to show additional miscellaneous information and detail as
needed to meet the strict requirements of ALUO provisions cited by Appellant.
. Revised Tree Protection Plan by Landscape Architect John Galbraith. The revised plans
more accurately depict the location of trees, their sizes, canopies and drip lines.
. Letter from Landscape Architect John Galbraith with attachments addressing specific
objections raised by Appellant
The Notice of Intent to Appeal raises five specific issues, some of which contain multiple
items and/or issues within one general topic. The issues raised on appeal are addressed
hereinbelow:
APPELLANT'S FIRST OBJECTION:
Applicant has failed to comply with Sections 18,61. 200(A) (2)) 18.62. 040(H))
18,61,050) 18.112.090) and 1.08.20 of the Municipal Code and has violated same.
This application received a favorable Staff Report as the project was revised and
presented to the Plmming Commission. Applicant has submitted all information deemed
necessary by the Staff and the application was deemed complete thirty-days after filing. In
preparing material for this presentation, an Appeal to the City Council, Applicant has provided
additional detail and notation to the attached plans, tree protection plan and other related
documents to further support approval of the proj ect.
APPELLANT'S SECOND OBJECTION:
Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable criteria for issuance of a Tree
Removal Permit under 18.61.080 of the Code and hasfiled an incomplete
Application in evidence,
After hearing the evidence, the Planning Commission determined that removal of the
larger Alder (#1 on the Tree Preservation Plan) met all of the applicable approval standards for
removal pursuant to ALUO 18.61.080(B). Following the Planning Commission decision in this
matter, Appellant raised issues of tree removal concerning trees on adjacent property owned by
the Oregon Departlnent of Transportation (ODOT). The additional evidence submitted by
Applicant's expert landscape architect establishes that several of the ODOT trees will require
pruning along the property line ( # 6, # 12 and # 14 on the Tree Preservation Plan), as allowed by
law. The pruning of only one ODOT tree will constitute removal under the ALUO. This one
ODOT tree (#5 on the Tree Preservation Plan) is less than 6" DBH, therefore exempt from the
tree removal permit requirements as set forth in ALUO 18.61.035(D). This tree is located on
public land and is, pursuant to ALUO 18.61.035(E), exempt from the City's tree removal permit
standards under this different provision. Alternatively, this tree is also a "hazard tree" under
ALUO 18.61.080(A) and has been identified as such by Applicant's landscape architect.
Page 2
4-~
" '
May 13,2004
APPELLANT'S THIRD OBJECTION:
The proposed development fails to fulfill the City 's large development site
standards.
Appellant asserts that the site development standards for large scale projects must apply
to this project. Provisions of the City's Site Development Standards (Section II-C-3) which
governs applicability of the "Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects" states:
"Developments (l) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a
building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site
Review Zone shall, in addition to complying to the standards for Basic and Detail Site
review, shall conform to the following standards:"
This project has less than 10,000 square feet (8,300 square feet) of gross floor area and building
frontage less than 100 feet. While an existing building on this tax lot (which is over lOO years
old) combine to produce more than 10,000 square feet, the "development" in this instance
involves only the building now proposed. In the context of this project, the term "development"
is ambiguous and requires interpretation. The ambiguity concerns whether "development"
includes the existing, separate and non-contiguous 100-year-old building or whether it concerns
only the proposed building. Applicant asks that the City Council interpret this provision to mean
that this building does not constitute a development involving a gross floor area in excess of
10,000 square feet nor a building having frontage in excess of 100 feet in length. Based upon
this interpretation, the additional standards simply do not apply to this project by the very
threshold terms of those provisions. In the event that the Council interprets this threshold
question to define "development" only as projects that occur on one parcel, the Council may
impose a condition of approval that all of the development of the proposed project take place on
one separate and distinct parcel. This may require applicant to reestablish and adjust property
boundaries. Applicant asserts that the same can and will be done, if required by the Council.
In the alternative, should the Council determine that this project must be aggregated (because the
Council finds the two buildings to be contiguous) with adjacent building owned by Applicant,
the standards for large scale projects can still met. However, meeting the standards will require
the Council to impose conditions: 1) requiring that the proposed building share a common wall
with the existing building owned by Applicant, where the common wall may include structural
elements needed for seismic stability, and 2) that the proposed bridge be widened to
accommodate seating which, with other public spaces on the property, will meet the "Public
Spaces" requirements of Section II-C-3b of the City's Site Development Standards.
APPELLANT'S FOURTH OBJECTION:
Removal of the tree to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the City 's Site Design
Standards,
Appellant appears to be addressing the criteria in ALUa l8.61.080.B. Applicant
proposes to remove the existing Alder tree on the property in order to permit a development
consistent with the City's applicable land use ordinances, requirements and standards which
Page 3
A-3
I'
II
1.I
.
May 13,2004
requires buildings in the downtown to extend from side lot line to side lot line. Moreover, other
site design/use standards require buildings to maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or
property line (other than for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features). The removal of Alder
Tree (Tree # 1 on the Tree Preservation Plan) is needed to permit this application to be consistent
with these provisions. \Vhile the standard governing front yard setbacks requires buildings to be
setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk, the Alder is only :t8 feet from the North
Main Street sidewalk. However, setting the building back the maximum 20 feet, the building
would still be within 12 feet of the trunk. The evidence shows that according to applicant's
expert arborist, "if construction is to occur closer than 20 feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely
that the Alder would survive." Therefore, the removal of the Alder is also needed to pernlit this
application to be consistent with the City's Site Design and Use Standards.
APPELLANT'S FIFTH OBJECTION:
Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings are in violation of Section 18.108,100
of the Code.
Appellant has not raised an issue with sufficient specificity to allow any applicant or the
Council to address this general statement of failure to disclose or conflicts of interest as
addressed under the hearings procedure section of Ashland's Municipal Code. Applicant has not
identified any "actual conflict of interest" which would require a member of a quasi-judicial
body to remove themselves. Such a member would have a conflict of interest if they would
receive a direct or substantial financial interest from the approval decision before them. There is
also no evidence in the record that Appellant raised this issue in a timely manner or with
specificity to allow a member of the Planning Commission the opportunity to address these
allegations. To the extent that these issues were not raised below, they have been waived and
lnay not be asserted on appeal. As a practical matter, the City Council hears this application as a
de novo review, taking new evidence and independently evaluating the approval criteria as it
relates to the current configuration of the application before it. To the extent that an Appellant
did raise an issue of an actual conflict of interest and could substantiate such actual conflict of
interest on behalf of one of the Planning Commission members, he is not prejudiced in that the
Council is reviewing the application de novo.
The evidence supports approval of this application and Applicant urges its favorable
consideration.
very,.t~l;Jy yours,
.;, 1-
-'. /\. . -1, .,
~I' (.~/~
Alan D. B. Ha~er
Attorney at Law
AH/ cas H:\USER\lvw\ W ork\ADBH\Ashland.Ltr, wpd5/l2/04
cc. Lloyd Haines
Craig Stone
Page 4
A-if
MEMSER OF THE
OREGON AND
CALIFORNIA SAR
LLOYD MATTHEW HAINES
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE 222
TELEPHONE,
(541) 482-9300
FAX, (541) 482-933-<1
51 WATER STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
The following testimony is submitted in support of approval of the application and
denial of the appeal relating to the Shasta Building to be constructed on real property
located at 88 North Main, Ashland Oregon.
History of the Project
88 North Main LLC acquired the property in December 2002. I am the manager of the
LLC. My intention for this project is to complete the vision set forth in the Downtown
Plan, which was developed in the late 1980's. That vision included opening the creek to
public use, extending from Lithia Park to Water Street.
During the past 15 years I have worked with the City in furtherance of this goal by
participating in the creation of Bluebird Park and making it accessible by pouring a
concrete ramp behind 31 Water Street. Also, the project on Water Street
(Condo/Commercial/Hote1) included constructing a public sidewalk through the project,
so as to permit public access to the creek.
The Shasta Building project envisions opening the creek to public use, creating a creek
walk, creating a park under the viaduct and donating public art to the City.
Shasta Building Design
From the inception of the project, we have worked with staff to design a building that
comports with the City's wishes. We have worked with the Historic Commission to
design a building, which will be a beautiful and compatible addition to the Historic
District. We present a building that is exactly what the City wants. It includes:
1. An In fill project that replaces a deck, which is used only a portion of the year.
2. A mixed use project (retaiVoffice/residentiaVrestaurant).
4~~
II
I"
1.1
3. Historic design.
4. A project in scale with the surrounding buildings.
5. Improvement of the creek water carrying and storage capacity.
6. Removal of flood hazards (existing deck and existing bridge).
7. Construction of a new deck further away from the creek and above flood level.
8. Construction of a new bridge above flood level.
9. Landscaping both sides of the creek (although one side is owned by the state) even
though there is no landscape requirement for this project.
10. Donation of Public art and artistic benches.
Weare not requesting any variances or conditional use permits. Weare willing to pay for
the improvements to create the creek walk, park and public art. The project has the
support of staff, the Historic Commission, The Planning Commission and the community
(see Tidings Editorial-April 28,2004).
The Alder Tree
When we began the design of the building, we wanted to save the Alder. We looked at
notching out the comer of the building to accommodate the tree. After consulting with an
ArOOrist, we learned that it would be impossible. Alders are susceptible to root fungus
and will die unless construction is held back at least 20 feet. Thus, the building would
have to have been held back approximately 30 feet from the sidewalk.
Additionally, Alders do not live very long and at best this tree would live another 30-40
years. It makes no sense to create a structure (that will exist for 100's of years) around a
tree that will not exist very far into the future.
If the building were held back 30 feet from the sidewalk, it would not be easily seen,
would be economically unfeasible and would violate the policy of the city to get high
density in the downtown corridor. Additionally, it would violate design standards which
generally require the building be constructed adjacent to the sidewalk and in no event
further than 20 feet back from the sidewalk.
Both the Tree Commission and the Planning Commission approved the removal of the
tree. We agreed, by way of remediation, to plant 2 significant trees on the OOOT
property .
Also, We offer to have Russell Beebe, a local artist, create a beautiful sculpture from the
tree, which will be donated to the City as public art. It will be installed on the ODOT
property or under the viaduct, where a park will be created (if the City and Sate approve).
Lastly, the larger branches will be carved into artistic benches, which will be placed
under the viaduct and will support public viewing and use of the creek.
A-6
Issues raised by Appellant
1. Three trunk Maple:
We were asked by the Tree Commission to attempt to save the tree. We redesigned the
building to accommodate the request. We have prepared and filed a modified tree
protection plan.
All accommodations have been made to save the tree. The building has been designed on
pillars to minimize root impact. The Cantilevered portion of the structure has been pulled
back from the creek by 10 feet. The deck has been narrowed by 18 inches. The grading
plan has been modified to leave the vast majority of the root system untouched.
2. ODOT Trees:
We were requested to and have submitted a tree protection plan for the trees. We will not
use the ODOT property to stage construction. The building has been designed on pillars
to reduce root damage. And, of most importance, the impact of construction on the
ODOT trees will be minimal (See Arborist letter dated 4/24/04).
State law permits us to prune any branches that hang over our property (Oregon State
Bar Real Estate Disputes. Section 9.28). There is no prohibition in the Tree Preservation
Ordinance against building in the drip line of trees, which are located on adjacent
property (the ODOT trees). The necessary pruning will have little impact on the "stand"
of ODOT trees and the branches overhanging our property are considered "hazard trees"
and can be pruned without a tree removal permit.
Lastly, ODOT has no objection to our proposed plan and 18.61.035(e) gives the City very
limited control over trees located on public land.
3. Other creek trees:
Other trees are located in and around Ashland Creek. None will be removed. All are
protected on the modified tree preservation plan. The area under the viaduct is already
paved and any equipment or materials that may be used or stored under the viaduct will
A~.1
II
r
.1
1.1
not touch the trees or their root systems. The vast majority of staging for the project will
occur on Main Street.
4. Fraud:
I unequivocally deny that I intentionally misrepresented anything to the city or it's
Commissions. Further, I unequivocally deny I directed or instructed the professionals
working on this project to intentionally misrepresent anything to the City or it's
commission nor do I have any knowledge of any intentional misrepresentations that may
have been made. It is my belief that all submittals relating to this project were made in
good faith.
This is a terribly complicated project with numerous design standards, ordinances and
issues involved. Tree, Flood Plain, Historic, Downtown and Riparian issues and
ordinances apply. Any inaccuracies were unintentional and have been corrected with the
re-submittal of various documents.
The resubmitted Tree Preservation Plan, along with the narrative of John Galbraith,
correct the inaccuracies and explain the reason the original preservation plan contained
some errors (see Galbraith letter attached to new tree preservation plan).
I highly value my integrity. I have always dealt ,vith the City honestly and in a
straightforward manner. This project is no exception.
Real Purpose of the appeal:
The appellant does not want any building built on this site. He wants the deck left as it is.
On two separate occasions, both at a meeting \\ith City staff on 4/26/04, and in a
discussion with me on 5/6/04, he has made it entirely clear that the only acceptable
solution to this issue is not building any type or size building on the land.
Not permitting the development of this site will violate the City's stated goal of
supporting In Fill and high-density development in the Downtown Corridor.
Conclusion:
This is a good and attractive project. It will be good for the town to afford public access
to this portion of the creek. The project improves the water carrying capacity of the creek
and storage of floodwaters under the building. It removes obstructions to the flow of
A-8
It is unfortunate that the Alder tree must be removed. However, it is not a heritage tree
and has only a short life span. It will be turned into Art that will benefit the City for years
to come. It also will become artistic benches, which the public will use while enjoying
the creek.
I urge you to support this application. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
/~
Lloyd M. H' s
May 10,2004
II
~
A-. r
I'
,I
. I
~
.~
~
o
+-l
. ,...,
--0
~
otI
=
o
.~
=
. ,...,
o
1.1.
8
N
ai
N
:c
~
...._---_.~
f. . DAaYTmINGS
~
I
. '
~
Jam~ 0nc:Iy Singletary
~
Andrew Scot Bolsinger
News Editor
Pet.- JI-""I"Ma'
Features Edjtor
..,. Murphy
Our View
'.. Project a good fit
fora great area
.' Lloyd Haines, whose 8,325-square-foot pro-
~, posed structure on North Main Street is wend-
. ing its way through the city's approval
. process, says of the plan, "The project is the
. poster boy for downtown."
. He's right.
,
, Concerns about the removal of a large alder
tree on the property just north of the Ashland
Creek Bar & Grill, the size of the project and
its negative effects on the surrounding area
are misplaced.
The tree isn't indigenous to that spot, nor
. has it been there particularly long - about 40
J. years. It's always unfortunate to chop down a
. tree, but the proposal doesn't cut old growth,
! it removes a landscaped alder.
As for the size, in any mixed-use structure,
'. there is a minimum square footage required to fit
~ everything in, and though 8,325 isn't that nwn-
~ be~ it certainly isn't out of scale for the area,
:- Finall~ the building's facade has a classic
. feel that will improve the look of the block.
. Plans to develop walkways that capture the
:- natural beauty of the creek will be a terrific
~ use for this special corner of. the city;
This is the kind of project that embodies
.~ infIll done correctl~ enabling more people to
:, work and live downtown and contributing to
. the vitality, of the city's core.
We hope that the Planning Commission's
" approval of the project allows it to move forward
:. without let or hindrance - endless appeals are
: better suited for projects worth fighting.
A -/6
,Apr 27 04 09: 428
calbr8i~h ',85500t8~~5
\
5414884126
(541) 770-5164
TO:541 7" - 5164 P.001
"fb
p.2
APR-24"200oQ 07: 39 FROM: TCl'l ~1YERS
Upper Limb-it
Tree Servic:e
PO Box 881 .
Ashland. OR 97520
Phone; ~ 1-482-3667
412~004
AIn: GaIbrath and Associates Inc.
Tree assessment for ODOi~roperty near 88 N. Main for the Shasta Project
Mo8t of \he tMes on the OooT property are in fair Q)fldftion but " need of remedial pruning. Three
of the trees should be rMK)Yed as indicated on the he report fonn enclosed wiI1lhis document. The
oon~ planned for 88 N. Main wit h8ve some impad on the nes but bec8us8 rtn5t rI the,~
8~ young, the impact shoutd be minimal. A few d the tree C310pies eMtend over the ~ siIe
and wit need 10 be pruned beck to ~ BpeCe lOr fie bJilding. AU !he trees on U. ODOT popelty
,have been neglectecHor many yeen;.1lertbe I1ere are not any nees 1hefe that n of any greet
. sigTlificarn;e. V\fflh proper maintenance, manv of Ihe trees COUld gt1)W into desirable tmes.
ConstnldlOn done in ~e past (tMlGng a ..,.,r,g wall alonglhe propet1y line) was done Without
regard to ,he root syatems of the e""g trees. One oftte lrOCa,has aIlCar' end ~ docay from
Ulat wnstndon. The otJ\ef trees mar hew ..,. ~!heir IUOt5I\at '4lIe cannot ~ see, The
cur~ ptans for CDISlructiOn irdIde the use 0( piers, wtIith will heIer accon.Mdaee Ile root zone of
the existing beeI. The pI8ns b COI1SWQon also i1dude 8he tA~1 ., end the seMces of a
cer1ified norist. These ~ have been eIrectWe in ~ con&bUdian danage ~.... on
oCher pmjecU. t feel that the planned oonstnJCtion wAlllOt t\8ve q sigr1iftcIrW irnp8ct on q of ..
des~ ReI on the COOT property. It you have any questions regarding this report please call me at
48L-3661.
TO~~'
.~
pper limb-it ,
I
;}-- / /
, II
"
II.
II g~\q[~~}b
May 12, 2004
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines
Executive Summary
To Whom It May Concern:
This project involves construction of a new building on a key downtown property which currently consists of outdoor
deck seating areas at the edge of Ashland Creek. It may be helpful to consider the customary and normal procedure for
such a project. During any project involving an Architect, an engineer, a Landscape Architect, City commissions, and
multiple regulating agencies, the design process involves (several) Preliminary plans, with changes and adjustments to
plans prior to Final Plans and permitting. The Tree Commission examines each project individually, since ordinances
cannot anticipate all circumstances. The professionals in the design team customarily work with all parties and within all
laws to arrive at an optimal use for the property and for the community. This fact should be known even without
statement, but it is stated since it has been challenged in this case.
In his opposition to this project, Mr. Hopkins characterizes this normal procedure as somehow "misleading," alleging that
items were "concealed" and "misrepresented". At the Tree Commission Meeting of May 6t\ Mr. Hopkins falsely accused
me and Mr. Haines of deemphasizing the existing trees in order to prepare for their removal. Mr. Hopkins' creates a
scenario of deception that simply does not exist. His exaggerations and allegations of manipulation, concealing,
misrepresentation of facts are polar opposites to the open process, professionalism, and high ethical standards of the
design team.
This letter describes the main adjustments to this project, as a result of meetings with staff and Commissions, and our
response to the Appeal.
. Dripline information: Electronic data of survey information was transferred to our original Tree Preservation &
Tree Removal Plan. Though this is typical procedure, the diameters around tree trunks did not represent the exact
branching outline & drip lines of leaning trees.
Corrected, accurate dripline areas have been shown on the revised plan.
. Multi-trunk Maple: The Maple, which was originally slated for removal, will now be preserved. The three-
trunked tree, had first been labeled as three trees on the survey, but later observation by the Landscape Architect
and Certified Arborist Tom Meyer located only one crown beneath the existing deck. Preservation became
possible by eliminating a wall and planning for special deck construction methods which minimize root
disturbance. The required excavation for creek flooding will be outside of the critical root zone. Two trunks of
the tree will be lightly pruned. Only one (trunk-like) branch of the tree will be removed, since it protrudes into
the proposed building area.
145 S. Holly St. Medford, OR 97501 Tel 541.770.7964 Fax 541.770.5164 email: contact@galbraithla.com
Landscape Business License #6661 I Landscape Architect's License OR-254, CA-2980 I General Contractor's License #104274
A -- I~
I"
, II
II,
. ODOT Trees & CanoDV: Of primary concern, no fill is to be added, and the critical root zone of these off-site
trees will not be disturbed, allowing for their preservation. Next, the canopy area (see "dripline information"
above) has been corrected on the revised plan. The revised plan shows that the great majority of the
canopy/drip line will be retained, with some minor pruning adjacent to the property line. Certified Arborist Tom
Myer's letter of April 24, 2004 states, "1 feel that the planned construction will not have any significant impact on
any of the desirable trees on the ODOT property." .
Several hazardous trees need pruning or removal regardless of the proposed construction. Planned removal
dates are in the Fall 2004.
Tree #5: I have examined this Maple and re-measured and found it to be 5.97" caliper. As such, this tree may be
removed without a Tree Removal Permit. This tree is a hazard, as it has been injured, leans onto the property, and
it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. Thus it will require removal.
Tree #6: I observed that one branch of his 3-trunked Ailanthus tree was previously topped, and the sprouted new
branch extends over the fence line towards the proposed building site. This branch is a hazard. It is clear that it is
likely to fall and injure persons or property and that branch must be removed, regardless of the construction
project. The remaining branches will require minor pruning only. In my opinion this pruned area will be less
than 50% of the existing canopy of this tree.
Trees #12 & 14: grow against a fence, and branches extending beyond the fence will require pruning. I have
examined these trees, which are not being removed. In my opinion required pruning will affect less than 50% of
these trees.
Tree #17: I have examined this Robinia pseudoacacia and it is my opinion that this tree is a hazard. The trunk is a
stump sprout with a broken leader and it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. Thus, the tree will require
removal.
. Trees located across Ashland Creek: Three trees have Tree Protection Zones which extend across the creek and
into the project building site. The revised plan shows that the portion of the Tree Protection Zone which is
currently paved, will not require protective fencing.
. Tree #1: In a letter dated 9-3-03, by Tom Myers, Certified Arborist refers to this tree: "Any construction within
its drip line (20' from the trunk) will have a detrimental impact to its long-term health.. . If construction is to
occur closer than twenty feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder would survive."
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards require buildings in the downtown to maintain a zero setback from the
sidewalk or property line, and ASDUS II-C-2b (2) requires buildings to be set back not more than 20' from a
public sidewalk.
Since this tree is approximately 8' from the North Main Street sidewalk, it is not possible to maintain the required
20' radius undisturbed Tree Protection Zone for the tree, and also to comply with the ASDUS requirement. For
these reasons removal of Tree #1 is necessary to comply with Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards.
The above statements constitute my expert opinion on each issue. For an unabridged discussion of these points, please
refer to the "Responses" document.
Very truly yours,
jL~\
John Galbraith, ASLA
Landscape Architect
145 S. Holly St. Medford, OR 97501 Tel 541.770.7964 Fax 541.770.5164 email: contact@galbraithla.com
Landscape Business License #6661 I Landscape Architect's License OR-254, CA-2980 I General Contractor's License #104274
A-J3
Page 1
TREE PROTECTION NARRATIVE
Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
For Shasta Building '03
May 12, 2004
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
~C\SI~
· 2f41 ·
~ L~~~
~~~J06n L. Galbraith . H
OREGON ~
m 04/07/89A~~
CtPE A~C~~
Contrary to popular belief, the root systems of trees are not deep taproots.in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top
12 - 18" from the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's dripline or canopy. See tree
and root section drawing Figure 1,
A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy,
vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying."! If roots on one side of a tree are
severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old arid. mature trees are less tolerant of construction impacts than
younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or fore~t stands are best retained in those groups,
The species tolerances for trees to be retained within the Shasta Building project are as follows:
RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS2
RElATIVE
ffiMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME lOLERANCE COMMENIS
BigleafMaple Acer macrophyllum Poor Declines following the addition of fill, tolerates
root pruning
Alder Alnus spp. Poor Intolerant of root injury
Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Moderate Moderately tolerant of root pruning.
Incense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens Moderate Tolerant of root pruning. Responds following
disturbance with good acclimation.
Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima Good Responds following disturbance.
B lack Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Good Tolerates root loss & fill. Intolerant of saturated
soils.
Walnut Juglans spp. Poor
The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by
species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree.
1 Matheny, N. & Clark, J. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land
Development. p. 72.
2 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc,
A- -Ilf
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
l'
'II
.l
1.1.
Page 2
GUIDELINES FOR OPTIMAL TREE PRESERVATION ZONES3
DISfANCEFROMlRUNK
SPEClFSTOLERANCE lREEAGE (Feetwioch trunk diaJ:tner)
Good Young
(<20% life expectancy) .5'
Mature
(20%-80% life expectancy) 0.75'
Over mature
(>80% life expectancy) 1.0'
Moderate Young 0.75'
Mature 1.0'
Over mature 1.25'
Poor Young 1.0'
Mature 1.25'
Overmature 1.5'
Figure 1
Drawing used by permission of Dr. Gary Watson, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois.
Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional
service, is the property of Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, modified, or
changed in whole or in part, for any other purpose without the express written
authorization of John Galbraith, Landscape Architect.
3 Ibid., p. 74.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
A-~JS
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
Page 3
May 12, 2004
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Shasta Building '03 I Lloyd Haines
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter concerns the removal of two trees which are the subject of the application filed by Lloyd M. Haines. The trees
are identified on the Tree Preservation Plan which we prepared for the above captioned project.
Tree No.1 (Alnus sp. - Alder):
The tree referred to on the attached Tree Permit, No.1, is an Alnus sp (Alder). It is located on Lloyd Haines Shasta
Building construction site, approximately 8' from the North Main Street sidewalk. This tree is located within the building
envelope thus it is recommended to be removed. Certified Arborist, Tom Myers has examined this tree and together we
have determined that this tree does not presently pose a hazard, However, construction within the 20' radius Tree
Protection Zone would lead to the inevitable decline and death of the tree which will then produce a hazard. This species
is subject to Armillaria root rot, prevalent in our area, and the root rot is likely to develop with construction
It is my expert 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,
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.
Tree No.5 (Acer macrophyllum - Bigleaf Maple): The tree referred to on the Tree Preservation Plan is an Acer
Macrophyllum. It is located on the adjacent ODOT property. The tree has been re-measured, and its' corrected size is
5,97" caliper. This is below the 6" caliper size tree which is required to be shown on the tree inventory in Ashland
ordinances.
It is my opinion that this tree is a hazard tree, because it has been injured, it has a trunk cavity in the plane of lean, and
leans directly onto this property, It is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property, It will require removal.
Tree No. 17 (Robinia pseudoacacia - Black Locust): The tree referred to on the Tree Preservation Plan is a Robinia
pseudoacacia. It is located on the adjacent ODOT property.
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
;4- /6
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
, II
1.1,
Page 4
It is my opinion that this tree is a hazard tree, because the trunk is a stump sprout and has a broken leader. It is clear that
it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. It will require removal.
It is my opinion that the removal of tree No.17 will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow
of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because:
. The trunk location is within an existing canopy of trees, erosion and soil stability will not be an issue beneath the
remaining canopy of trees.
It is also my opinion that the removal of tree No.17 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.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
John Galbraith, ASLA
Galbraith & Associates
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
A-/7
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
RESPONSES
In the matter of
SHASTA BUILDING '03, LLOYD HAINES
May 12, 2004
The Design Process:
This project involves construction of a new building on a key downtown property which
currently consists of outdoor deck seating areas at the edge of Ashland Creek. It may be helpful
to consider the customary and normal procedure for such a project. During any project involving
an Architect, an engineer, a Landscape Architect, City commissions, and multiple regulating
agencies, the design process involves (several) Preliminary plans, with changes and adjustments
to plans prior to Final Plans and permitting. The Tree Commission examines each project
individually, since ordinances cannot anticipate all circumstances. The professionals in the
design team customarily work with all parties and within all laws to arrive at an optimal use for
the property and for the community. This fact should be known even without statement, but it is
stated since it has been challenged in this case.
In his opposition to this project, Mr. Hopkins characterizes this normal procedure as somehow
"misleading," alleging that items were "concealed" and "misrepresented". At the Tree
Commission Meeting of May 6th, Mr. Hopkins falsely accused me and Mr. Haines of
deemphasizing the existing trees in order to prepare for their removal. Mr. Hopkins' creates a
scenario of deception that simply does not exist. His exaggerations and allegations of
manipulation, concealing, misrepresentation of facts are polar opposites to the open process,
professionalism, and high ethical standards of the design team.
Conclusion:
Issues such as those raised by Hopkins, and/or substantive changes in project plans or
information are regularly addressed in every project during the permitting procedure.
Issues:
In his Introduction, Hopkins states that "every tree on or adjacent to the project will be removed
or put at serious risk by this development". This is simply NOT TRUE. Rather than dealing
with sweeping generalities, let me address each point:
. Dripline information: Our initial site information, including driplines, came from data
collected and reported by the project surveyors. Surveyor's information included trunk
diameter, location and diameter of the drip lines of trees, and topographic contours. These
written field notes and survey information were transferred to our Tree Preservation &
Tree Removal Plan. This practice is typical and routine for our office. While the circles
centered around the trunks of the trees accurately depict the electronic files of surveyors'
driplines, the circle symbols used do not represent exact field outlines of the branches/
"dripline" .
Corrected dripline areas have been shown on our latest plan.
;4-/6
'II
1.1.
. Multi-trunk Maple: The architects had concerns about the Maple trees located at the
proposed deck because of the construction activities right next to them. Preliminary
architectural drawings showed the Maples as being removed. We had agreed with this
because a proposed retaining wall at the edge of the deck this would cause severe damage
to the roots. The owner and planner wanted to retain the Maple(s) and wanted to see an
architectural solution. The architects and our office came up with a plan revision calling
for the concrete wall to bridge the roots of the Maple, connecting to the earth by piers
located away from the crowns of the trees. This new solution would still call for selective
intrusion into the root system - but to a much lesser degree than using a spread footing.
This still left problems of how to keep construction activity as far away as possible and
still construct the project. We submitted with the intention of discussing with the Tree
Commission our doubts and concerns.
I mentioned my concerns about attempting to save the three Maples near the deck area.
Retaining wall work and other construction activity could harm them. Commissioner
Don Todt said that he has seen Big Leaf Maples withstand quite a bit of construction
activity in their root zone and they seemed to recover well. Commissioners suggested
using plywood and bark as a way of cushioning construction activity. Also,
Commissioners wanted to be assured that protective fencing would be installed flush with
grade, without holes being dug into the root system, and be immovable.
While considering the new issues, I revisited the site to review the trees. The owner and
architect had proposed moving the proposed cantilever building back in order to save the
tree. By doing this one of the trees would still need to be severely cut back. I discovered
that the surveyors' points for locating the trees had been taken from the top of the
existing deck. The "three" Maples emerge from a large cutout in the deck, with soil and
decaying organic matter (duff) that may appear to be grade. However upon my further
inspection below the deck, I discovered that the trees actually joined into one crown.
Thus the "three" Maples were in fact one tree. I asked Tom Myers to look at it and he
thought that it looked to be one tree also. Tree numbering on our plans was revised due
to the three Maple numbers which was actually only one tree.
After reviewing this new information, I concluded that it would be best to completely
remove the branch that protrudes the most into the revised future building. I also
proposed pruning the other two Maple branches as lightly as possible, allowing for the
building. When I presented this discovery and proposal to the Tree Commission at their
next meeting Commissioner Jennings thought my proposal to completely prune off one of
the tree branches would create an opening for rot, and the location of the wound at the
crown would quickly spread to the other branches. She suggested cutting the branch high
enough so that it could be inspected on an annual basis by a certified arborist.
Another issue has since arisen in reference to the Maple tree on the creek banle Our
office discovered that there was to be excavation under the proposed building in order to
allow for flooding of the creek. It has subsequently been worked out that the required
excavation can occur outside the critical root zone of the existing multi-trunk maple. The
2
A-~!1
proposed deck construction will add minimally to root disturbance. No wall will be
constructed.
This progression once again shows the flexibility and design process at work. Had the
Maple(s) been removed, as originally proposed, an entirely different scenario at the
creek's edge would have been possible. Urban-styled creek bank protection, as what was
done behind the plaza; planted with native riparian plants, might have been proposed.
. ODOT Trees & Canopy: We were not unaware of the proposed building's impact to the
health of the ODOT tree group. Our primary concern was the critical tree root zone, the
tree protection zone shown on the plans. The trees on ODOT property, mostly located on
the crest of a slope next to the roadway, were observed while visiting the site with the
owner and the architect. The land slopes down from the roadway and trees towards the
property line. The architect said that the building would be located at the existing
retaining wall inside Mr. Haines property. No fill would be added. The ODOT trees were
not on the owner's property and the ro"ot area was not going to be disturbed. The critical
root zone would be minimally impacted by construction.
The letter dated April 24, 2004 by Tom Myers, Certified Arborist, states "I feel that the
planned construction will not have any significant impact on any of the desirable trees on
the 0 DOT property."
With the Tree Protection Zone addressed, atte,ntion can next be turned to the tree canopy.
As mentioned, it was an oversight that our office neglected to place the accurate location
of the trees canopy of the drawings, when relying of the surveyor's dripline information.
A correction in the canopy shown has been made on the revised plan. It shows that a
large portion of the tree canopy extends into the roadway (north) side of the trees, and
this canopy will not be disturbed. Only a minor section of the canopy will be removed.
It must be remembered that due to critical root zone being left intact, the ODOT trees will
continue their growth after the construction; thus the canopy will continue to enlarge.
Tree #5 has been re-measured, and its" corrected size is 5.97" caliper. (Our earlier plan
lists a different size.) This is below the 6" caliper size tree which is required to be shown
on the tree inventory in Ashland ordinances. This tree has been injured, leans directly
onto the property and will require removal. (See photo)
Tree #6 is a three-trunked tree. One branch had been previously topped, and the sprouted
new branch grew with characteristically weak attachment. This branch extends over the
fence1ine towards the proposed building site. This branch is a hazard and needs to be
removed (removing canopy), regardless of any new project construction. The remaining
branches on this tree will require only minor pruning.
Trees # 12 & 14 are now growing,."against a fence. Branches which extend into the
building will require pruning, but the trees will not be "toothpicks" as alleged by
Hopkins.
3
A--8o
'II
1.1,
. Trees located across Ashland Creek: Three trees located across the creek, #25, 26, &
27, show Tree Protection Zones that cross the creek extending into the construction site,
The revised plan shows that the portion of the Tree Protection Zone (across the creek),
which is currently paved, will not require protective fencing.
'....';'\\ . \i ',. ~.,"~
~. "01\'''' iI:;.
;f~~':\~'~' ,~,~
M, -~. <,..... ",
~ ~ '" -",~~~~
i . ~: .
I'.~~ ,,:::'," ,...: ;'~, ";,!'.':
.. .
.::':;~;~'~r'>~~ -:-. ..
. .
'-' I.~ ..~.
~~~1\" "
~' :;.
Tree #5, showing injury and tree lean
4
4'--~1
Upper' Limb-it
Tree Servi~'
PO Box 881'
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-482-3667
4/2412004
Attn: Galbraith and Associates Inc.
Treeassessmentfor'ODOT)roperly near 88 N.: Main for the Shasta Project
Most of the trees on the OooT property are in fair condition but in need of re.mecIiaIpruning. Three
of the trees should be removed as indicated on the tree report form encIo6ed WiUllhis doca.ment. The
construction planned for 88 N. Main will hale some impact on the trees but because most of.the.trees
are young, the impact should 0 be minimal. A few of the tree canopies extend CNet the construction site
and wiI' need to be pruned back to make apace for the building. AI the trees on the 0001 property
ha\le been neglected for many years. therefote thefe are not any beeS there that ale of any great
significance. With proper maintenance. many d the trees toUfd grow into desirable b'ees.
ConstJ\lctiondone in lhe-past (building a retaining waI a100g the property line) was done without
regard to the root systems of the existing trees.- One of lheotrees,has a scar and associated decay from
that constndon. The other frees may have damage to their roots that we cannot readily see. The
current plans for constn.don n:Iude the use of pieIs, which will better accommodate the root zone of
the exiSting trees. The plans for construction also inClude a tree proIedion plan and the seMces of a
certified arborist. These precautionS have been effedive in reducing oonstructiOn dc.... to trees on
othef pmjeds. J feel thallhe planned oonstruction wi not have anysignificaltt impact on any of the
desilclble trees on the OOOT property, If you haVe any questiOns reganfllg this report please caD me at
482~7 .
Tom~~~~
~t:it'~/
I
4 r ;:J.CA
'II
1.1.
Ma~.12 04 12:12p Llo~d H. Haines
-..,........... ...-.... ..............
Policy No. A38-007S58S
P.ge 2
15414929334
.'
SCHEDULE B
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, nor against costs,
attorney'fJ fees or expenses, any or all which may arise by reason of the
following:
Lien., encumb~ancee, defects And other matters affecting title to 8aid
lana, or to Which said title is subject, an bereinaft~r Bet forth:
1. Taxes oX' assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the
records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on
real property or by the public record or proceedings by a public
agency which may result in taxes or aeses.cments or noticea of sueh
proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by
the public records.
2. Any facta, rights, interesta or claims which a~e not shown by the
public records hut which could be ascertained by an inspection of said
land or by making inquiry of pernons in poesesDion thereof.
3 . Easements, or claims of easement f not shown by tbe public records (
reservations Or exceptions in patents or in act~ authori2ing the
issuance thereof, .water rights, claims or title to water.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material
heretofore or hereafter furniDhed, imposed by 1 a",,' and not shown by the
public records.
5. DisC'repa%1ciefJ, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area,
encroachmento or any other facts which a correct survey would
disclose.
6. City liens, if any, of the City of Ashland.
(Liens, levies and/or assessments current as of this date)
7. Rights of the public, riparian owners and of governmental bodies
in that portion of the above described property lying below the
high water mark of Ashland Creek.
a . ~ easement created by in.ctrument, including the terms and
provisioDa thereof,
Recorded Volume: 49 Page: 603
In Favor Of FA M. Carter and F. L. Nelson
For Power pipe line and righto in connection therewitb
9. Limited access in deed to State of Oregon, by ~nd ehrough its
Department of Transportation, Highway Department, which provides
that no right or easement of right of access to, from or across
the State Highway other than expressly therein provided for ahall
attach to the abutting property,
Recorded ~ January 3, 1956 Volume: 420 Page: 192
A-~3
'II
p.2
1.1.
Ha~"12 04 12: 12p Llo~d H. Ha1n~s
-.......... ...... ..............
POl_icy No. A)8-007558S
Page 3
15414829334
p.2
.f'
10. An ea.aemene ere4leed by instrument, j,ncluding the termo and
pl:'ovisions thereof,
ReeorCled January 3, 1956 Volume: 420 page: 192
In Favor Of State of O%'e9on, by and. through its State Highway
Commission
For Slope easement
11 . An easement created by instrument, including the terms and
provisions thereof,
Recorded May 30, 1990 DoC\11l\eDt No. 90-13237
In Favor Of The City of AShland, Oregon, a. Municipal Corporation
of the State of Oregon
For Pu.blie pedestrian puzpo!Jf!O
A-90.
'\
,
\
,
\,
)\, (
/ y~
/ ' ~; 1Il
/ / ,., ) ~
,I I ,\1 ~ ~
I / / A ,', ~ III
i / I '~) '\\, ~ iil
IC'I.. ~ I / /., I ,\'~ ~ ~
II To /;' J.,,(,9 """
~;~~i ' ; ,')~ / ,,I l~ )/\ir~
" iX, "I:. ~ ~ ~ i \1 I " "/ / E \ ' ' ,
. Jr----.qr------ ~r-~ ~'j{ / ' , / fi-j<,/ '~Xl
IfO~,6.t~;M~;\\--- ~:'.~ 1/ ',// ~. '\ //" /
/~/ eo" 1/ ~ - --~ ~\ ; ~ ~'>,...... ......~\ ' ~ 1/ /1 \:./
i / s -U----7uL ~ 1< ~ /Y;ii !l ..........", />-\'\ '\ 1 / .I \ ~I
1 !:!" /' ~- ~If e ~ L..! a ~ ........~ I~ '-[, " / / / \ /\,
j' I&..' ~ '>.. ~ K V ~ ' , \' 1 I ..sc.... \ 1 \ '
"!>'~ i I '. // ~ 1/:xliIl ~ ~~ -! \" , Q ,/ ./ 41'S \'
\ "', L; I ~ ~IF' ll" ~ ' '-, ' ' '1"" ' ,
\- .,-; ~__-- _~_ \~l ii... ~_ ~\S b-Ll ~ -t.-l ~,;'-~.~ ",\ // ~~ /' /\
,.?~('/ c::;::::~~_ ' '. __' _ _ __ '-' ~~~ ,," I ~--..-- r.:.,~ -', '~I/ l., ~~ko... 1/ \\ \,
( _- "'" ~r -a \ " ''JT .\ \)','''-. ' " """ ·
\ 1_ r- ...~ ,IMollMlilRT 71i'lA.' 1878,.............' '<:; ~ l>... ~- -~--~'" ~ ", I" 1/ 'Ii / \\ \
\ \' _ -.::DIll!: ' "'("';, ,,,,,- ""'~ , '.' J
\ \ ~ _ _ ' ~ __ _____- ~ '..... J, r - '\I. 't:I.' 1 , . 1
\ \ _________ 7"- .., ""', ---- _ " 0' \
\ \ ~ ';,. '".ol~- " -- " -/~';\' I ',,:>0' \
\ ~ ~ ~ii- c;- ___~----------JJ~------_ .....;r'~...... : ,. J ~ 1m I ,,/ , , : ~ ~ ~' }~~ / ~ / / ~-- ,
~\ \ \.. ,,0. ,------.- "..w'lt ,.,,,,,, -, , " / ~ / '
gj '. ~. '&" " " __ ~J {l J:l!\ '~:,.,"~ . ' :><",' /' ~-"'.(e
= \1 -I:.' ~/~-----~---.--UZL":~ii-fj-z-----~;o\o-----..-......... . .-! .: ~~ ~~:; ,- ... '...- I) ,;",,,,.......... ',r:,,:
~ 7 t. Iii ";i r ,ca; J :-:",'" '" '.~, I'
/ '~~it 'r-~~....----Wi.-~-1C/;-,~.~:'"t '>,,~,' ,~ .\
\ I' lro /, i z' 0 !!j. f ~.i'x)~l,~, -;:, /' v-~ /~
\ q; i I G') i! ... b ~~~'~1I '.:, / .", '\ l...r -----,...
\ ' / ~ HI r--J1u..--~" : "" 1iI~ I' , /)f(.., ',. 'l I I I L/ . ~ l - ci~
\ ~r'! at. ')(.../, -'i ",1 1/ I~ '/ ~ ~\ ~ I I I "At:I\.--------
J~~ ---t---- -1(--""": I" ,,\.1 ~!~ :.~Yk~)J.J.f.... J,t I ........../1 ,J.l \ I \ \ ",/J.J~ .......:;.."1\ "~Ii'l\
~ t \ --~,--1' -t: - .,:::::. c / i-" ~, "'1 I ......... r I /~~~'\Jt, , r'\
.~' E';:-"- __,,,= " _ - ' --" 7'7'--::-)_,' F\' -+t",~ i.'~' ....f'....in 1___ /'A..... 1\ \\ \.# '~ I '1\
lit", ~ ~', - ~~ "~::' -.:il _ Il"'i*JET~1~F'.-p._!~~ltT-~t,t=&1-~-~T f~~,7 ~'h iiI" ~ I '7 ~-<l[?'~ d!\ \. '. 11 ~
; '! _ --r'"~-:- -=.---'!W.opup ~] 10>.J,;~, . ; - ,It- t,. f--)~. ;_L~. r!_lj~~_i!i: .j- q~ _1\t LH ! I .. .I L ' t' /"'tlll?, C~ I 1\. \.- \ !
~ .~. ---i- _. .~ I -7 ~ ~';/=~ ~r-:-ijjl'-i-" ,_ ! -:'1_ _ _~...;.~--~ ,} ~ .. J l ./. I i I or;. "l ri~' ~f. ~A I f\, i\ I ..
IS: I I 1./ -" +cl-'rl. f-j--Y.::' ++ !-h-ll;'--+~ Ii ~~v /~. ~r ~ ~ ;;~Jj l' \ 1
;;1 I / I I ~!~~EI~;;iflliHl~l/~r~ ~: ~I:~~\~II;I ~:'~ i~:>'J \~ ~ i
/ i'i" I I ~ I~ 1-ti~~IT-l.; !.c J -L I. ' : ~ n I \ ~iPi ~\ t' ~ \ R f..V' Ll= )
: I c I / -'S- ._.,~ - -6th ~-Ol:; -I:::J~- ~ "" I;li!" '\ ~'v 'I " 7.
.. I " ., "",. i i it' -- __I __ on.. o. I : .. . 7 r.. )I 'jf.
~ .~ ~; I I II:; In I'" T T . , r on I j~il" ,--' ,- y' ,7 }'t{ t/ ""
;; ii, z I U I I II 7 .... ii ,ij '. ~, .- 7 \, f, L I"'" /
l"!~ 'T ",.ii'\\>,. ",. I · i' I 1-.,\ I. 1 7\ '
z ' .. "..=~ " ... I .....J".., ..fo-"~ F '''' J' V tI
-< ---------{t .~- ~., '- J____ I ~ ~~ ~ r 7 L L\ 7
,. g ~ ----------~7- I "-~.. "i ----- r'---i-j: ~ -}
o m _ I,~ J I,.., ------'" ~I ---- , ----- -- J.i~ t1; ,~ '. 7
:;1 ~;~----r~~--m-_---'i~At~ :--~. ."~~~~~~~~/-----:
:; } ~;~. --:f j[ ~il~~~ l' J: (... ;')-,. ?"\ ~ ~l9jo.~ en
,,._ / II I r r-~- ~ ~\:!l ~A(/ I ).~,'1 (,0 \ \\) 1<::
!z:r>> II = r Jii-ill ~-<j\ !:l,~ ~ ~~ I ~ (,~ ' <'1=- ~~
r- 1/:;,f' I tl 0 ."s .. ~ il . ~
r- ICJ /1" / I 11 ' I - m 0
,..... 0 ", I I;~ ~I' / ~ ~ ~ · '"
/ .sr'" I ~.'\..,.o' /~ ::I ..
"""", ",,"ll) 11\ ...",/ ~ ' ......'" ~ ~
'4b ('..... ..E.... i '-~... ;;;~
!~ ,> -if" f ~~. v x .: io
CII ',t' 4" FA !S
~~it. I ~
'# ~-j :II Z
'lJ# = :
~ Cen
0'" 6 2S
i~
QC
- --- ---- --
------- --- --
-
,
,
n
~ ICJ
; m
7? i ~ ~~ ~i~l;i ~ ~
~I~ zo
It: ~ ~ I ~ ~i Ilil if ~. ~
-i~ I!
~ ~ r"a f ~ II
i~~ I 6 ~~
!g!!l i ~~ oC:
" ~~ ~Ol
c5 !2 Y'
Co) 6~
s-
o
~
CD
n
a
....
\
......
IlIunll
Ii. j~ UP
~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 18
~) ~~ I lIli
\ ~~:~ ~ II
, ~! ~ ~ a~
'\11 I n~
'. I ~ II;
I ~ ~
~ J ,-
,-
,-
'~/
"""
N
'"
"-
"
"
,
'-
"
"
",
"
'"
"
,
"', '\
- "". '\.
" "-.
'....,'.... '\
"'....." \~ I
" f
, I
~...i.'= "\-1
, I
\
\
!
I
,
Ii!biil
~2 ml~ iii
~ml~~I,,~
~~I~il~~
~~ ~~~~
;~ ~~~!
" :z.
-
;il!iI!liil11Ii
. ;~!~h i~1 al
~ ~ J ~ o! ~
~I jj~ ~~ ~
~~ ~N"ij~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~~ i!
z
~
w
if:
:I>
z
..
en
...
:II
m
m
...
CIl
30'
i ~I!i ai tn
~ifiJ ~::t
Ul5!~ <i m
!i~" 1
~~~ t: /
~! i ~~ /
~I/ i
~ iij! !
~lgl
~J~ja
.~ ;n
134 38'
I~
-~
i
o
i
7
f~
l~
II
~
:I>
fI)
z
~i m )I-
1." 0 ·
f it - ..a..
II ~ c
a ...
:J
I'll
1ft
...
E!
"II"
8m
"G')
Ii
....
8.
I
/
N
,
,
,. ....
"
"'\
\
'\,
(;--
,
\ w
'\
Ii
0(1
Ie
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
,
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
g
I
\.
en
III
0
..E II ;:
~~ I I I ! III
~
-B ~ ~CDI f~
II i f
Sc::l .. ~ ~ II;
.- .~ fIlii ~
~ ~ !~ml ~~ i ~ I
Iii
III c:a
w
I ;; i I
j~iIU~! i h~
""~ 2 i~i h;.11 1&
UUUIIII~ ~~~d;hl E
.... ~.~~~IIII~I~~ii s
an
II
~
3i
~~
CC
to.Ito.I
.
,":
.0 ~-
UJ Z ~z !:I"'~ Q.Z
r_., .c:rQ..~O l'islQ
~ :E ~ :-8 ~VlOl
U Z Vl Vl~ ::S . ;
~ < ~ <~mo g ~i81
....::I:l ~~....:~~ ;cVi~~
~ ~ 0 .Z 4IlI~o~~.
< e ~ z~en=> 6 a:Scivge
rv ~ < ~-.ll$o...J :z:2~e:z:
If) ~ .......... 0 00 0 =>:5Lo. I
ui 7101 ........ 0 I-L:~ X E~O...J'
...., 0 ...J L&.. Z < Lo. Lo.I -I'::
o ...JO .0 I- o~2-1g
----------------------------------------------o:;------::S------------~-~-~~-----------=..;.-----!-::.-----
II 0 E~VlO ~..
I:..... ~ .< ~
C"""" 0 0"" ..~
~ lii VI
~
u
~
ci
,e~.v~! 3"eZ,~!.09N
.-----------------.-.......-.....
'.
'.
...........
,..
N.
iii
lB
ii
l
j
~'
...
"
t
~
.,
"...-,.-,..
~#
_#
.,/#
.........,-
/'~#
/-
---
N
'\,
\
\,
\
'\
'\.
..
au
/0
Q
CJ
II
c
I P
B ~ II
.....
C I JJ
c
;...
"
,...:
,."
~
~ .
, S
~L
~ I
~
tn
~
L
~
tn
"
Z
~ ~an
litE
~
l:
N
,."
'Co
~
0,
N
Z
...1....
,CJ
i
a
8
L
e
c
~
&II::
::.
tn
I
i
i
/
//
.O~
69>>e91
.~
('oj
en
~
~
~
V)
~ ...
c"ogeOoI ~
lJJ
l:
N
,."
io
'~'<:991
CW)
N
~~
..
\
\
\
\
\
,.
II'
\ )\
... ~.."", I \ \" "-
--- J \\ ",
\'-"
~..~ I \
---
-.... - / )
I /
~..,. \.
-- "- -
-- \ \ \
~E \ \ ...
-~~ n.l
-- If -wi
I ,.
m -~"/~ \ \ 8
z -- - J i \ :II
... ."
~ ~
z
.
:II r=
."
i !
c
~ i
i
11m.
;! I
i! !
~I
w?"
i
i
m
~
-- --
,.
~w
~a.
i
:II
."
~
Z
I
I
.
I
m
=
!
~
~
~
~
m~
~~
n
a
m
! I I I
I I
I I
~.c.a=..a=Z=lZ=:J I I I
I I
r==-, I cr ~m'm
I I
~I
lX H ~\J
C\J -~
-___J
il == III
;~ 111 ~~
J ~~ ~5B ~((~
.....t... ~
! _I
;
I l'ill
II
~ ;
II i
r 4 III I
V r-
It~~ >-
I
!; ! -.
...1 ~
;"><'\. ~ I
~ H~
!
I lID l
1'\ ~ I
-~ I It
h..... . I lJ ) II
~ r-r- 1 I a... .....1-1
-r- II . I .- i - .
-r c .:;..-=...... =:....""'. ..... .. T----:"'..:~'" j -
/
^
,
)\. -l' >- tj m,."~
iii' " ...~
Ii....... ~~
-----Jl-" I "I
-'-. Ii
I~!
'. II-
,
.... at
/. ,
i;i 0 ....
....
,
'. ,
~ ,
,
~ .... '....
I ...
0
- l-
re.
...
I
~
N
~
w
II""N .TltaaT
.........................--..-......-......-...--...--..-.-
.........--.-..--.---.......--.-------
II
~ \f----------;---;------------~---;-l ~
.
~
~i.
-wi
6
a
."
E
.
~
,.
.
,.
x(~::~::):~~~:)~~>
/'. /', /', /':xx/,>><
~~~
'.' / /, '>-'1 x .>(
. / // )<. / '. ~.. >< >
"<//~~.><l(:~
:<<:./:.::::.::1 ;';~>:j
/.. / / /'..1,1/. .>',
:'~~~;:~::;:;'.:I~;:s':
'y' "y. ' '/ 'v.1 ..../ ../
~x>:'>( > //./
'.'. ,^o,j<. /( 'I;
~;~>
''\.J'', "', ',j'I.\.,..>,y
;::~~
~
(
II
~I
I
i
CII
.
t.
z
i
!!I
i
,.
en
if i :t-
fl: c
f! ----
i
,.
.... i PUiJU I...."""
~ ~Ifp~~~ ~IIUIlIIlI
I I ~. ~ ! i ~ J ~ ~ ~ . . · , . ,
I . HU~
I i ~ ffl ~
i
II
I
n a In
I I ~ j ~I ..~~I~ii ~ ~
~i~ J ~ Ii Illdl ~. =
~f; ~ iaf::3CD
m G) ~a
i c:
~m; I I; Ii oC:
~QJ
i In
fI 3"
0
11'1
, (.)
.5 8~
<Ii ;i
-i:
l!!o I ~<(
,,~S: ~.I Ii
~.~ ~!iit' ~
e Q) 1Jill" oZ i ~
80 ~~i ~~
<C C;:n: lLW Iii
1&1 Q
co
! I i I
I" ,
II I !
I Lrn_JL.... ~~-~~~~
! _-:':"::'.:._- ~
I ----- ..,.. .
I .--. =r=--~-:-.;:'=-=
! I; I
!,: I
; I i "---t-.. Ii
:)~~ II
\
i~i' ~~~"CJ
!~.m]
I nr-' ·
..b=J IlJ
: :ill ttIl o-,! CJ5, '
. ~ \J. ' '0- .l "llJIj
. rn . "",,"in'~;""i!lr..:.,!!.
\~~'I\-' l-i .1-. .R,;f~l> ~!
II:. I .0-" ~
!I!; I
;:i i :..,'~r. ~ Il-iIIOD
':\, . IHII
I,.. ..
an
~
~U
i
..
.~1;!i~;,
~
~
i~
.t-.Q
.'-,tl
.:Jli! l!! ."',tl
!!li!:!!i
li~ oIhtl
;~.~ .,..~ i~ .,..,l:1 il ,a-,t!
~
:!!l ~
fi ' i
CW)
..
o
2
0\
Jm
f!
"
z I
25
..a
i I
i
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
J
I
,
I
I
J
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
F I
I
~ ~ al~
Iii CD ~ICD
-; -I~
l~
I
u.i
...
CD ul
fil! g'::j ,
~ g:~ I
- -, I
I' ,'If! b-,E
I I
i~!
.~ '~'
Ei'V ~ I
-I'" - r
~
,I
~
r
..~,."".' ..... :,;:" ~"~~''''~--~T? '''n..iii\ j
m. ,i..
.,.'. .... I.ll:. .
: ';. i= mi.
hI;: :'1 I-
L): ". i=
'.\ \ " I-
,}~n<;;;;\1 i," . t;;:
.,.:: ::i:/;,::~;\t:,~.'.~.\ ~
~ :'1.::';:<.: <:~:; .~
;~;:" ~ ;~~:<'..~
~ :.;.:t :.:Il~ ~
N
. . ~::::.!
~:~(;f:::,.:/.;;' ,
~J:"':.:::
: ^ ;~.Jt
!M?:~;.,:"
~
'.:,:
, ' . ~j,
.; jM~j'<J)~~
':;m;'~~\:,: ~.:.':"
~. l>"".:", . :,: ,', I' '. . :,
.' :':>"J.
'\
1&1
. I
I
<.". -I
l.nn
I UU
::: Ti-=
.JJ.L
:~
: !
: ~~
I ~~
jU
I
I
I
1
D
~ I~~
~ i!
~ II~
~ y; !
i
u
..
1&1
1&1
CIl:
..
m
z
c~
Ii'
c:>>
a
...
CD
c:>>
>C
1&1
~
CIl:
Z
..
..
m
C
1&1
Z
I-
~
o~
m;
\ III Uwl;II~I!U
'f ~}':~:t~:) i
. .. . .. -- - - -.. ". - - .'. .-
I I I I I I I I I I ~
CD It> · ... .. - i
I:Q
cJ
w~
~I
i~;l
~~ ~r
.'-,ti .'-,tl
!~ I~
I
II
.0-,1:1
..
. ..11.1
UU I,
~-.~J~~1.1.
~ --' .t.tm1',
:- ~~;' ; ~~~~~t'~;;~~';,. ~
,..,tl$lf '(~~'~!i~:' '..-..,.."".,,, .......,..,' i
~~ .'! ..~. ._.~'.:..~- . ;;';;': [l. ~:~: J. ,.:~,: :~:0 '~~~\ ';.:. )
.... ~ ~/ ~ .:,...~:;';;~~::"'~:;~~,~.,~;e4;m~~~(;'w::'~~ .t;:-.-~'o4"N~
'." .' ',,"" ..~"\ ~ ..., ~J'it~...".. ...' >!..... ,
" .':, ' ~.. ;:. t..:.;, \ ..t~ ' . ~{.;i;";~~~.. .~~?~~.:,;..::. """~
';:... ~.:' '. ~i~':.~",,,:,,;;~.~~~~~~"~:.rf.:~' ,
'" .>"'. - ; .~; :~[I:' ~: :, . ~~. ~~:~:'l:';:8:'~::::
'-, '1' ~t~""}:" .. . ;..,...'.....M I
.~J =:" . :~, >.,,,#o~ ~.,~..,\.:"' ~'.':'r": ~;'!.$~~ ' .
.... ,... "." ,", ,..,? . ". 't ~. ...."~ ~ ,'\\
<:;:1 _.
();
~-~, '..', ......"...... . I ." "". ," . ,Jt~..~ ~
,:i::' ~ (!,.~~~~~~1J!f:~:
. "
.' '?};,J~~~~:~:~-~'-.~I
iJ .~~ ~~ .~~ .~
~ ~ ~r ~r ~r
. '
tl 'r::II' ,
..., .JtU,
";'. '''" .' ; " ., .' '-
i.~ '~.....~.,.~
. .~
~
"'"
f::
~
~-;\
l=
.~.~.
l 3: :
'. I. .
~' I ~
~ I .
1 ., . ~ . " 'I ..' '. '
. . . .
, . '
u
I:Q
1,11
! i
~ ~ ~
U~J i 3
~~,dp~~
Ililio~iB.
::! I
al lu.i
~ ~ ~:i
_ i_Iii!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
l
I
I
l
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
1\\ :
~~
u; .
ai llli
$ ~ gl::J
. ~J~
~ :!!llf
,
.O-,tl
I
, !J~
; \g~
- I
I
,'~ I
,:.; I
:r :
c
c
'.'
~
c====:~
~gsd!"
d. I <m1!
II!
II : ~I
Ii ~: II
ig
~!
g~
I
g 51
.... 110 f XI
..... 0 _!
,.., :I -
Nil!
ct E j!
i
c
m
z
o
~
~
1&1
~I
~ 5~
co
an
W
a
-
m
?-
m
1&1
~
Z
I-
~
o~
Z~
..rlE b-,E
~
i=; ..
j ::
::) ::
~ ;
u ~
~ :
!:2 ~
W {l "0
Z & ~~
., & > G.I
Z ~ ~Uj
> ..~
9: I;
5 ~ ~~
m ~
@
.^': ~
I ~~
::'; I o~
.. I ~g
'::'.; lei - .!_~---
r.. I
;' i ~ ~, I
.'L~
~ ~: 'l I!
. ~;: I1g~ ~W
} ,,/ I l!:~!: ~~
,... / .'1
I: ~r
11 II
I (I: n
I
Id
~Im
I
~I~ ~~
ow!: ~~
I
~
l5
~
r
ii
i~
II
;~
.... "I
~~~
a;~;e
"",,,..
~
!
l'!l=! ~
~lll 0
~
~
~
NCI'i
~III'
~ ::
: co
.., ......
.......
1!i:l
~~~
....&&
ijj
"':uicQ
..
t I~~
& ;;l ~a
j ~;~
;..; till'"
~ .llt~
- ~~<.>
i
c
..
5:
~
"
'"
III
;;ili ;I~
i ~
~ !
~Hil
!~i
!ii
.";<0
CW)
1&1
a
-
m N
~
W
W
CIl:~
U~
~
~
U)
~m
qn
...
-
..
CI
N
fA
U)
~m
n
...
-
o
z
A
n
.
n
a
III
o
z
1\
I
~
" I
II
fA
..
U)
am
n
...
o II
Z !It
I
)>
!
N
j
l!
i
m
i
I j
I
I
I
I
~
fII
i
fII fD
! I
fII
i
'"
12'-d'
12''''
12'... I'...
II~ l~fD
~!e ~ii
I ~:
J .
! :
: :
~ ~
i :
i !
I !
i ~
12'..' 12'... 3''''
..
;
II ! I r I
I i
I i I
'I
~
eft I I eft
i
I
J
!
f
i
f I
II
I ~
I
I
~
ca~ ..
rv
~
. .
I ....111 Oli!III:~M.G ....
fl !!I ~ i ~ I p ~ M III i I I
fllw I hi"~U ,~ K ~....
II ~ ~ I I J II i t I
I I ~~ I !!I
~
ITl
n
a
III
I ~I ~i~lii ~ ~
~ 111111 if cO' ~
Q fl~i i ::1 ~
~~ ~~
II ~m
o
I
ill ~ J= I
Iii I Ir I
i
I I I
! ~l
~ iJ! It ~ ~ ~
~ If ~ I ~
I R m :i
~l ~ ~ ~ ~~
ll\ ~~! ~ ~
I ~ ~ I ~ I
~l ~ ~ ~~I~ ~ 9
~!> x-
. ?I~~; lU ~
.
il .
lie .
.
+ .
.
.
.
~
.~ i <
~~~~~Il~
E ~~I~ ~Q~ ~~
I'! ~lil~~~g;~~
~~ ~~ I i ~ ~ ~ ; I ~ ~
~~~ ? al~ 8::!
~ ~>-l Ii!
"'*' 0 0
;.
~ ~
nl
i I l-
I
~ ~ ~ ~
<(
~
lU
\)
<(
&
~
-.J
2
I
Z
()
i=
\)
lU
\l)
('f
I ~ h~
~ Iii!
!; ~~~~
ii E~ ~~m~
~ ~ 3 ~
~
w
~
t
<
I/)
z
\) It
Z
lU
IL
~
i=
()
~
~
0-
lU
lU
It:
1-.
Z
0
i=
()
tH
~ ~
1= ~
~ j ~
~ I !,
~Vi; i ~ L ! ~
.;'..",::..:."...:J. .1:~\'J.:,~j\~"-.//.":.:'_:.',.. . _n. .... . . ,l.\...., .. ~
c....t
~
Il'
~
& ~
~ ~
mID .
~\)I!
~~~ -~
~.~N~~~~~~~O?N~~~~~~~o~a~~~~~~~.
~ ~~C~~~~~~c~ccccccccn~n~~nnnn~
C-'
~
Q 8
~ ~
s~ 0
~? !
rLi CI:J
~ <
rLi
~.",~ ~ ~ ~
g lir~
I:il ,
;: i
::l <J<J
III
~
~
~ I~~
CI:J
f
~
~
E-o
~~~ ~
d~:Z;~ ;:;
Z~"'f!l '"
~ra~~ ~
~
\') .;J.
I:
.;J. ~
s
j, ~
1.\2 ci
~ ~
Ij ~
c \')
s; l:: Il.
..
I ~ f \l
..
0
1 :;:i ~
f ;on
n <:
\l
E
8
~
:;:
~
11
~
\i
1
-w
...J
..<(
>-u
CD en
~
~
Il\
X
W
~
.
~
~
()
t<)
~
~
~
t
!
g ~
1 ~
~ ~ ~
~ ! 1
~ ~ 1!
~ ~ ~
~ ~ t;
., ~- '&
F \i L
~ .ij ~
m (s'ii&.
5 ~ ~- '2
z j ~ ~
;J :s ~ ~
oc L 1: 11
1U ~ ~ 3
m ~ ~ ~
\!) -'l'1m
~d
~~i
CD
~~,
~~ Ii"
~ !l!~
I~, ~m
~\J ~~
i~
~
~
l=
<
~
! ! ~I~
"21] 1 i ~-
~ lil i,!~
~ ~~~Ii~ I~
~ ::: ~ ~ I~
n ld,j,i!.s1 ~
!lIUH I
~
~
~ 1
1: ~
.~ & <(
~ f I~~~~
~ I ~ ~ ~I~ E
1 . ~ i i lll~ ~
;> I~~~~ lL
!L J.g___="
~ii 1~llil'i1
11L1i8 ~~ILl!dl.jo':
~U)
-~
l--
\Ol)
-..J
~~
~~~ I ~I
~~~ ~ ~~
i~~~ i ~i
~t > ~3
d!i..~.I:~
~-, ";;"~'~~,~\;-<:;:,:,,}; "-,::,-;;-'~::~
) .
/ J
/ / '"
/ / )
/ /'" /
,./ /"
) / ~
y.. I r \ ---
/ ---
.. \ (
I ." )
/
y.. \ ..- ./"
.../'
""-
,_----............__--.1
-~\
_ ..r-- - -
...
.
~ ~
U\
\11
(\
-I
()
Z
,
~
~
OJ
il
~
-I
Z
G\
~
~~ ~ ~~!~ 8~ ~ Jg~ &~
8~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ii~ ~!
~j ~ ~11~F~:j 5 ~ ij ~~
{\~ )>9:!~:ii ~ III ! "ll~
ij~ ij~~~ ~~ ~ ~~
g \lI~~' -~ ~
~ '("-F'" ~.,.. ~
~~~~ ~~ ~~
~lJ ~ ~
ie '" ~
~
,
W ~~
--
7JJ
"'t! ~ ==
"'''' 0
<> IJj
~~ p > >
~ ~~ '"0 'JJ 7JJ
t"" :I:
.., > t"" ~
'Z > >
...., ~~
~ ~~I z 0=
. 0 0 ~~
N ""d ;;.:l ..
t"" r.rl ~
> 8
'Z =
'Z ..
Z
~
III
y..
->I..,
.\~
"" \
"'\
~
<
Ii
~
~ ~
~ a
I ~
j!ii i!~~ I; ~~ i~ Ii m ~
i!~~ ii~1 ~! ;i II ~i iil d
~ii~ . ~~~ j~ ~I ~II "~ ~
~~! 81$ (). ~ ~ ~ m~ ~
~~~ j~~ ~ a r ~ i~ ~
~U ;;~ ~ II ~ ~~ ~
~~ ~2~ ~ "! ~ !{ ~! ~
~F J!~;l Z ~ !::! m
:ii~~ ~~ -
I>~~~
,.,0 ~
04. Q
't1 ~o ....
t<J C;-~ "~~ w
~ i~ ~ ~
(> ~ ~
'l/ 5l
:t>ee
~~
~~--..
ill ~I~~
1 i ~ 1-1
II t i
Ii
q ; I
h'!
~ ~
~
~ - !l!
~~ 111
::;
~
~~
o.
-~
~
~~
z~
",0
:=J il ,:
rrl;p 4}
'" '" lIP if
~~ ~ 3
~fi g ."
~::r:> "1.
@ 51 "'<"'<I \.
g~ ~~S"J~
o
1.1.1
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC ,RING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAI~O USE ORDINANCE will
be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on May 18th, 2004 at
7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law
states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application. either in person or by
letter. or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity
to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on
also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise
constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court.
A copy of the applicatic tocuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and
applicable criteria are .. ..able for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost. if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection
seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department. Community Development
and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way. Ashland. Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those
in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length
of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless
there is a continuance. if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing.
the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request. please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and
Engineering Services, at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
............
'..............
_. .n __ __"_ .__ ....______ -. ,.,-
---" -- ..- ----..-- -....
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-1-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 09 BB; Tax
Lot: 9800.
APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines
11
,
18.72.50
\
/.
, I;.-~
J
SITE REVIEW
Criteria for Approva1. The following critena shall be used to
approve or deny a site plan: .
A. AU applicable City ordinances have been met a~d will be met
by the proposed development.
B. AU requirements :of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
C. . The site design complies with, th~ 9uidf thel~~hadOtePtred by the
City Council for the ~mplementation 0 I~ "",. a~. .,
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities,. for watteer"es~~~rty'
paved access to, and through the deve opmen ;. . . '.
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
t8.62.040 Approval and' Permit Reauired
I. Criteria for. approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued
,by the Staff Advisor. when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards '<?f this chapter,
the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts hav~ been minimized.
~
2. That the applicant has considered t.hepoten~al hazards that the _
developm~nt may create and implemented mea.sures 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 Plan"ning Commission shall consider the existing development of the
, surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted
. by the Land Us~ Ordinance. .
~
1.1
SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance ofTrce 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 demon~te 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 tbe applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 v~rification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have .a significant negative impact on. erosion, ~iI 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.
r.
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
pennitted in the zone. Noth'ing in this section shall require that the. residential density be
reduced below the pennitted density allowed by the zone. In making ~is detennination,. the
City may consider alternative site plans or placement of stnictures 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 appr.oval
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval
of the pennit.
(Oed 28~3, Added, 06/04/2002)
3
II
1.1.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
12 May 2004
Mayor Alan DeBoer and City Councilors
Ashland Tree Commission
Planning Action 2004-002
The above-referenced planning action was reviewed during normal review
procedures at the 8 January 2004 regular meeting of the Tree Commission.
Planning director John McLaughlin and associate planner Mark Knox were
in attendance, presenting the staff report on this action and answering
questions. The applicant and his agents, as well as Councilors Hartzell and
Jackson were also in attendance. After discussion, the Tree Commission sent
forward its consensual recommendations, as is precedent, to the Planning
Commission.
You have before you now an appeal from Randall Hopkins. He investigated
this project as a private citizen and submitted a document to Tree
Commissioners (which you have in your packet) of over 30 pages entitled,
"The Gateway Alder, ODOT Grove, Triple Maple, Trees of Ashland Creek
and the Shasta Building Project." He has attended subsequent Tree
Commission regular monthly meetings, most recently on 6 May 2004.
The fact that the Tree Commission had received information after we had
already reviewed this project is unusual. Nonetheless, we agreed that Mr.
Hopkins' document raises issues and therefore necessitated an additional
discussion by the Tree Commission on 6 May. Mr. Lloyd Haines and his
representative, Mr. John Galbraith, were also at that meeting. In fairness to
all parties, the Tree Commission allowed Mr. Hopkins five minutes during
public forum and Mr. Haines and Mr. Galbraith also received five minutes
each. One other citizen was also given an opportunity to speak to this subject
during public forum.
After that final testimony, Tree Commission Chair Ted Loftus closed public
forum and declared that no more discussion would occur about this planning
action until the 'Old Business' section of the TC agenda. When 'Old
Business,' was finally addressed, only Mr. Galbraith remained in the
audience. In discussion, each Commissioner presented his or her thoughts
and views about the situation. Some reported that they had been contacted
by citizens who expressed concerns about the loss of the alder tree.
Additionally, concerns were raised about fairness to the applicant. We also
4-
considered whether we should accept Mr. Hopkins' new documents or the
applicant's new arborist report and revised landscape drawings. Questions
were asked of planning department staff, Maria Harris, as to legal and
procedural issues. Mr. Galbraith worried that Commissioners had only
received Mr. Hopkins booklet, and none of the latest material generated by
the applicant. The Commission decided, as a result, not to accept any new
documents from either Mr. Hopkins or Mr. Haines or his agent.
To resolve these difficulties and to make our views known, the Tree
Commission is now sending you this memorandum. We recognize the entire
process probably cannot start over, but this planning action stresses the
importance of commissions receiving accurate, detailed information prior to
making recommendations.
You, however, are now in possession of this additional information, and we
simply ask you to carefully review all the documents -- those provided by
Mr. Hopkins and those that are submitted by Mr. Haines or his agents. You
are now in the position of having more complete information than what was
provided to the Historic, Tree or Planning commissions.
E
II
1.1.
THE GATEWAY ALDER, ODOT GROVE, TRIPLE MAPLE,
TREES OF ASHLAND CREEK and the
SHASTA BUILDING PROJECT
?:>
SublMi~ b~ 'Ra~1I ~.
INTRODUCTION
P.A. 2004-002 seeks a removal permit for a single tree
- the Alder that guards the gateway to downtown Ashland.
As will be shown, however, the truth is that every tree on
or adjacent to the project will be removed or put at
serious risk by this development. These include the large
grove of trees on the adjacent ODOT property, the
beautiful multi-trunk Maple on the subject property, and
several large trees along Ashland Creek behind the
project. As will also be shown, this reality is concealed
by a series of misrepresentations in the Application at
issue.
Fortunately, the Ashland Municipal Code compels the
denial of the requested removal permit and the protection
of the other trees precisely because of these very
misrepresentations.
~ i
7
'II
"
.l
1.1.
1. WHAT INFORMATION WAS THE APPLICANT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE?
Applicant was required by not one, but two sections of
the Municipal Code to identify the dripline of trees on
the project and land adjacent to it. section
18.61.200(A)(2), which is applicable to any planning
action, requires a Tree Protection Plan which includes the
following:
a. Location, species and diameter of each tree
on site and within 15 feet of the site; (and)
b. Location of the drip line of each tree.
Sec.18.61.020E defines 'dripline' as the imaginary
vertical line extending downward from the outermost tips
of a tree's branches to the ground.
In addition, where a project requires a Physical
Restraints Review as this one does, Sec.18.62.040(H)(1)(m)
requires the filing of a plan which shall include:
Accurate locations of all existing natural
features...Natural features on adjacent
properties potentially impacted by the pro-
posed development shall also be included,
such as trees with driplines extending
across property lines.
The location of such trees and their driplines are
necessary in order to ascertain whether an Applicant has
satisfied the Criteria for Issuance of a Tree Removal
Permit. Specifically, Sec.18.61.080(B)(3) provides that
~ I
the City shall issue a removal permit for a non-hazardous
tree when the Applicant proves, among other things, that:
!
'(r)emoval of the tree will not have a
significant negative impact on tree
densities, sizes, canopies and species
diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.'
That cannot be done without determining, accurately,
the densities, sizes and canopies of trees that will
remain post-removal.
Providing these plans and accurately representing tree
sizes and canopies is so critical that the City has
adopted a special provision in its Tree Ordinance. Sec.
18.61.050 mandates that:
nMisrepresentation of any fact necessary for
the City's determination for granting a tree
removal permit shall invalidate the permit....
Such misrepresentation may relate to matters
including, without limitation, tree size,
location, health or hazard condition,
justification for issuance of the permit, or
owner's authorized signature."
As will be shown, Applicant has violated each of the
above provisions of the City Code, full copies of which
are attached as Exhibit 1.
c j
1
1 .
'II
1.1,
2. THE APPLICATION GROSSLY MISREPRESENTS THE DRIPLINE OF
THE ODOT GROVE.
The attached Exhibits 2 and 4-11 demonstrate that the
dripline of the OOOT Grove extends well over the property
line onto the subject property. The driplines of Tree #5
(including much of its trunk) and Tree #6, a Tree of
Heaven which is the largest of the OOOT trees, extends
along a broad front a full 16 feet into the property (as
measured from the inner face of the concrete retaining
wall). Other trees extend 3 to 12 feet into the property.
The dripline of the OOOT Grove covers close to 25% of
the Proposed Building footprint. And that is without
counting a single leaf or branch from the Gateway Alder.
Yet, save for a sliver of drip line from Tree t2, the
portion of the ODOT Grove drip line over the subject
property is completely missing from all three versions of
the Applicant's Tree Protection Plan. Exhibits 3, 18-20.
How could this part of the OOOT Grove dripline be
missed by the Applicant, an experienced real estate
developer, or his Consulting Urban Planner, or his
Registered Landscape Architect and Site Planner?
to
'. ';"
'. .~;:;;~~,::,
":~ti\"
.:~1;;~~~ "l\" .",
REALITY - THIS JACKSON COUNTY AERIAL SHOWS THE ACTUAL
CANOPY AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
NOTE THE CONTRAST WITH APPLICANT'S TREE PLAN, WHICH,
EXCEPT FOR THE GATEWAY ALDER, SHOWS ONLY SLIVERS OF
CANOPY OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE ODOT
GROVE, THE THREE TRUNK MAPLE AND THE ASHLAND CREEK
TREES. INSTEAD, THESE TREES ALMOST COMPLETELY COVER
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF THIS CANOPY WILL BE REMOVED OR
PUT AT SERIOUS RISK BY THIS DEVELOPMENT, A FACT
CONCEALED BY APPLICANT'S MISLEADING TREE PLAN
If
'II
2
"
1.1,
"~-""""'-""'-"'-
.-.~ - --.
.; :. ..
t :
. . r~~':'::!F.~"~ ;..
.
PROPOSED
DECK 4
PATIO
,
, .
1
.~ ...._,,~~._~ i
.~ . . i
1 PR:OPO~c.:D
....~._..j BUILDING
~.- ~-....
1
-: t-..~
:-1 -
i :
~ "-':~i:=:~-' .'--
~- .+t~
:-.~ r ,.
, :,
'RES
l
~.
(
#T
56"
fJ?~
!
.'-' .~ .
I
-.
-
EXCERPT OF
Tree Plan
12-2003
!
4- --,. : ~.::
;c;~;;:~iJtJij:i~i~t.
'",
...~_ iA I 'N
::. ~. "', r 'J . .
. -. _ -, ~ '/0;: ok?'"
.,:;~.~~~,-
I~
PROPOSED
OECK 4
PATIO
t -~:~-;l
. 1. ..
. - ...... ~ -.,,-
. ,
.;-1. _.
. i :
! .-::t:-. "''''
:- ..~t-~
:-~]l ~.
, : .
6T
:;6"
f1?~
,..... -....
'~
...--..-\:-..- .
\-~
\-. -
1
-.'..--...-...
--
ACTUAL ODOT DRIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY
/5
4
'II
1.
1.1.,
, j
OOOT ORIPLINE EXTENDS 16' INTO SUBJECT PROPERTY
i i
Itf
5
PART OF ODOT GROVE DRIPLINE EXTENDING 16' INTO
PROPERTY, - SHOT FROM BELOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
/~
6
'II
1.
1.1.
.1
i t
MORE OOOT GROVE ORIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY
I~
7
TREE OF HEAVEN (TREE #6) DRIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY
17
8
'II
1.1..
t j
SOON TO BE SKINNED CEDARS (TREES #12-14)
1<1
9
.:~:.-
CEDARS' DRIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY (TREES #12-14)
/1
10
'1"1
1.1.,
, -
::',:.:~: .
..>~-;.~-:. -' .-
. ,..'
. 1ft
UNDISCLOSED ODOT DRIPLINE SEEN FROM REAR PROPERTY CORNER
~t
11
What then is the significance of this strikingly
misrepresentative Tree Plan?
3. BY CONCEALING THE EXISTENCE OF THE OOOT GROVE DRIPLINE
OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, APPLICANT CONCEALS THE FACT THE
THE PORTION OF THE GROVE ON THE OOOT LAND ITSELF WILL
EITHER BE ELIMINATED OR PUT AT SERIOUS RISK.
Applicant'S Tree Plan represents that the trees in the
ODOT Grove are lexisting trees to remain.' Exhibits 3, 18-
20. Indeed, the Planning Staff, expressly relying on
information given them by Applicant, points to the
continued existence of this grove to justify issuance of
the permit for removing the Gateway Alder. The Staff
Report states at page 6 that u..the location of many
existing, healthy trees along the north side of the
property(w/in State right of way) provide a concentration
of canopy coverage in the area."
But the portion of ODOT trees and canopy over the
supject property cannot be r~oved ~~~h removing or
jeopardizing the trees and canopy on the ODOT land itself.
Much of the crown of Tree #5, including most of its
trunk, extends into the Proposed Building area. It will
have to be removed. One of the three multi-trunks of Tree
#6 will have to be removed, and possibly a second trunk
which appears to touch the side of the proposed building.
As noted at the Tree Commission hearing of March 2004,
removal of one trunk of a multi-trunk puts the whole tree
~J
'II
1.1.
at jeopardy. Besides the Gateway Alder, this Tree of
Heaven provides the dominant tree canopy visible upon
one's approach into downtown Ashland.
Trees #12 and #14 will have be trimmed back from the
building space, but since they only have significant
foliage on the building side, they will be left as mere
wooden toothpicks extending in the air. The upper floors
of the building may also impact yet other trees, as the
OOOT tree canopy over the subject property extends quite
high. All this damage will occur even if the root system
of the OOOT Grove stops at the concrete retaining wall. If
it doesn't, the potential harm will be that much worse.
Moreover, because these trees are part of a grove,
removal of one or more the trees will jeopardize the rest.
This is why Applicant's proposed Findings of Fact
emphasizes at page 51 that the Alder is not part of a
grove, as does his Landscape Architect's letter of 1-29-
2004. The Landscape Architect's Tree Protection Guidelines
also acknowledge that Itrees in a grove or forest stands
are best retained in those groups.' Exhibit 21.
Thus, all of the OOOT Grove will be eliminated or put
at serious risk by this development. Since this is the
very group of trees whose retained canopy is relied on by
the City Staff in concluding that Applicant has satisfied
the Criteria for Issuance of a removal permit on the
Gateway Alder, the justification for issuance of such
tLJ-
permit simply evaporates.
Yet, these facts are precisely what Applicant conceals
by virtue of a Tree Protection Plan that fails to
acknowledge that the OOOT Grove occupies much of the same
space as the Proposed Building. Anyone looking at the Tree
Plan would assume the OOOT Grove was safely out of range
of this development. In fact, the OOOT Grove on both sides
of the property line is right in the bulls eye.
Unfortunately, this is not the only misleading aspect
of the Application.
4. APPLICANT HAS ALSO MISREPRESENTED FACTS RELATING TO THE
TRIPLE MAPLE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
Exhibits 12, 15-17 show the beautiful Maple located on
the subject property. It fills a~ost the entire width of
the property and extends toward the street.
In its Application and again at the Tree Commission
meeting in January 2004, Applicant represented that while
the Alder would go, the Maple would be s~y~~. See TC
Minutes for Jan. 8, 2004 meeting (u..the three multiple-
trunk trees near the floodplain are proposed to be
saved"). Exhibit 22. Like the OOOT Grove, the Maple was
offered as proof that significant tree canopy would
remain, thus justifying removal of the Alder.
l j
But at the very moment these representations were
being made, the Maple was facing two separate obstacles
that would require its removal.
~3
'II
1,.1.
1. The Maple's Ivertical' problem.
In spite of Applicant's representations, the Maple was
doomed under the development contemplated in January,
because it would occupy the same physical space as a large
cantilevered building segment protruding from the 2nd and
3rd floor of the building all the way back to Ashland
Creek. While this Cantilevered Protuberance appeared on
the Site Plan and was identified as U(e)dge of cantilever
of third level above," it was omitted from the Tree Plan.
The Protuberance would have dropped down right on top of
the Maple over all three of its trunks. Exhibits 23-25.
At first, the significance of this Protuberance for
the Maple went unnoticed by City Staff and the Tree
commission and was not remarked upon by the Applicant at
the Tree Committee's January hearing.
Fortunately, a sharp eyed Planning Staffer discovered
the problem in late February, well after the Tree
Commission had heard that the Maple was being saved as
justification for cutting the Alder. As expressed in the
Staff Report, this discovery demonstrated the
impossibility of retaining the Maple.
When called on the issue, Applicant Lloyd Haines and
his Consulting Urban Planner Craig Stone stated,
incredibly, that they were unaware that these upper floors
extended back as far as they did. They said they thought
the upper floors stopped ten feet back from the Creek.
~q
How could they be truly unaware that the approximately
5,000 cubic foot Protuberance existed on the back of the
building? By the time they claimed ignorance, the
Protuberance appeared at eight different places on the
Site Plan and architect's drawings, and was described in
two places as Jcantilever of third level above.' Applicant
was also present when the Historic Commission discussed
the Jdepth and treatment of the overhang in the back' on
January 7, 2004. It was even shown on the design plan
attached to Craig Stone's 5-21-2003 letter that first
advised the City of this project. Exhibit 26.
After the work they had put in on this Application,
did they really have such a large margin of error on where
they thought the building was going to be located and how
big it was? If so, do they have the technical competence
to be trusted with planning a building on environmentally
sensitive land near Ashland Creek?
Whatever the case, this vertical problem was removed
by elimination of the Creekside Protuberance. But the tree
remains severely compromised by a still existing (and
still largely concealed) Jhorizontal problem.'
2. The Maple's Jhorizontal problem.'
Even after eliminating the Protuberance, the trunk and
l I
canopy of the Maple still extends into the current
building plans, horizontally toward the street, by about
22 feet. But this is concealed in two ways. First, the
~~
1 "
'II
1.1.,
Tree Plan identifies the JProposed Building' as a large
open space bounded with bold lines. But that is only the
first floor foot print. The 2nd and 3rd floors, which is
where the Maple will confront the building, still extends
backward from the first floor approximately 7 feet, even
after elimination of the Protuberance. Exhibit 28. This is
the meaning of the completely undefined dashed line shown
on the Tree Plan.
Second, the Tree Plan again seriously understates the
dripline. From the base of its front trunk (Tree #24), the
Maple extends about 24 feet toward the street. The Plan
only shows the dripline extending barely half that
distance.
Thus, when one looks at the Tree Plan, one assumes the
tree is well back from the JProposed Building' and that
only a few feet of dripline overlaps. In fact, the
building's upper floors extend a~ost to the base of the
Maple and overlaps with approximately 22 feet of its
dripline. Compare Exhibits 12-14.
~,
Triple trunk Maple
Note how dripline extends across entire width of Subject
Property
Contrast with the far narrower dripline shown on the Tree
Protection Plan, which shows no dripline over about one-
third of the property width
~1
12
L I.:
Pt:toPOSE:D
DECK .
PATIO
~.~ ..-,,7--\ -~._~ ~
, v~.,
, ,:i
..~ r~~ ..-:-
, 1
'~ '. t..:. '
.:"1. - -',
i ,-:!~~ "h ,..
:- --tt -~-
~-~~ l- ~ .
, : ,
---'.-.,..
(
~
EXCERPT OF
Tree Plan
12-2003
",
..I, T
, ',,:,.:;'sj";'iL~~,';;:~:,jL",
".~~ .....
-~." ,IAI 'M
".." -"'.! ..
:-.', . .. . "~... :~....
k .
TRIPLE MAPLE DRIPLlNE OVER 2ND/3RD FLOORS OF BUILDING
~r 13
"
-- \-r'
, v
CONTRAST BETWEEN ACTUAL DRIPLINE FROM THE TRIPLE
MAPLE THAT EXTENDS OVER THE SPACE TO BE OCCUPIED BY
THE CURRENT DESIGN OF THE BUILDING'S 2ND AND 3RD
FLOORS VERSUS THE SMALL OVERLAP ON THE TREE PLAN
cJf
14
1.1;
TREE #24 - 1000/0 OF CROWN TO BE REMOVED
41
15
TREE #23 -
'II
JI
16
1,.1.:
. k
ENJOYING A SUNNY SUNDAY UNDER THE THREE MAPLES
\ 1
J~
17
1, j
Anyone looking at the Tree Plan would be unaware that
the entire crown of the eastern most trunk (Tree #24 on
the original Tree Plan) will have to be eliminated. This
trunk provides the largest canopy of the Maple. It was
doomed even as Applicant was representing to the Tree
Commission in January 2004 that the tree would be saved
and even without regard to the existence of the
Cantilevered Protuberance.
In addition, over half of the middle tree (Tree #23)
also protrudes into the upper floors and will have to be
severely topped. Exhibit 16. 'Topping' means the severe
cutting back of a trees limbs to stubs 3 inches or large
within the crown to such a degree as to remove the natural
canopy and disfigure the tree. Sec.18.61.020(L) attached
as Exhibit 1. This trunk consists of a main trunk with one
subordinate branch growing toward the creek. Allor most
of the main trunk will have to go, leaving only the
subordinate limb branching off at an odd angle.,
Applicant's Landscape Architect describes this as
'minor pruning.' Exhibit 27.
Significantly, no portion of this drip line on Tree
#23 is shown extending into the footprint called 'Proposed
Building' on the Tree Protection Plan.
The third trunk (Tree #22) is also shown on the Tree
Plan as falling outside the 'proposed Building' footprint,
but it too has dripline within the upper floors. Sadly,
~
J3
:'''1
L I.:
. j
this includes a healthy part of Tree #22, as one of the
limbs that faces away from the building is dead.
The portions of the Maple that need to be removed need
to be precisely identified and evaluated by objective
experts, but it is clearly far more than 50% of the
canopy. Under Sec. 18.61.020(I), this means that the Maple
is being I removed' and, in turn, a removal permit is
required. Yet, Applicant is proceeding without seeking a
removal permit for the Maple.
To justify a non-permitted removal, Applicant's
Registered Landscape Architect/Site Planner claims that
less than 50% of the Maple will be removed. Exhibit 27.
But this is the same witness (a) who failed to acknowledge
the existence of over 600 square feet of ODOT Grove drip
line that could be seen by the simple expedient of looking
up in the air, (b) who was, at best, completely unaware of
the Creekside Protuberance identified multiple times in
the Site Plan, even though he is a professional Site
Planner, and (c) who curiously understated the drip line
of the Maple itself. Under the circumstances, this
Architect's claim should be accorded no weight, at least
none that favors the Applicant.
In short, the whole Maple is being I removed' as that
term is defined by Ashland's law, even under Applicant's
latest Site Plan. Yet, one would never learn that from
examining the carefully crafted Tree Protection Plan.
34
s. THE ASHLAND CREEK TREES ARE ALSO AT RISK.
In its revised Tree Plan, Applicant's Landscape
Architect added a series of large, dashed circles around
the four trees on the Ashland Creek back across from the
subject property. Exhibit 19. These areas were designated
as 'tree protection zones,' defined as areas where 'no
construction activity of any sort shall occur...including,
but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as
building supplies, soil, waste, equipment or parked
vehicles.' This includes areas under the Lithia Street
overpass.
While the circles are impressive on paper, they are
likely to be meaningless. According to Planning Staff, the
area under the overpass is going to be used as a
construction staging area. So, will it be a tree
protection zone with no construction activity allowed, or
the very center of construction staging? How can the two
coexist?
Even if the staging area is pushed north into the
larger parking area or the Tree Protection Zone pushed
south, there must still be access between construction
staging and the Proposed Building, and that can only go
right through the UTree Protection Zone" and the Ashland
Creekside trees.
The situation is especially marked regarding the
large, 36" caliper Alder perched on the banks on the
35
1.1,
Creek. Applicant proposes to remove the existing historic
bridge connecting Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and replace it
with a drawbridge located even closer to this Alder, right
across its drip line. Applicant's repeated claims that the
Gateway Alder is a veritable shrinking violet when it
comes to construction impacts hardly suggests that the
Creekside Alder faces a happier fate.
Such is the reality beneath the pleasing appearance of
the Tree Protection Plan's newly drawn circles of
protection.
6. MISCELLANEOUS EXAGGERATIONS.
1. Applicant's Tree Plan describes Tree #26, also
adjacent the creek, as having a 14" dbh caliper. Exhibits
18-20. It is far smaller. By overstating the canopy and
tree size of trees that will allegedly remain after
construction, the Tree Plan minimizes the negative impact
on tree size and canopy from removing the ",Gateway Alder.
2. Applicant's Tree Plan describes Tree #19, a tree on
ODOT property near the ODOT GROVE, as being in good
health. An objective expert should again check, but this
also appears to be an exaggeration. Again, overstating
tree conditions off site minimizes the damaging impact of
removing the Alder.
~ j.
3'
7. BENEFITS OF ENFORCING THE LAW.
Applicant was required to provide an accurate
information to the Planning Staff, Tree Commission and
other city groups that participate in the planning
process, including filing a correct Tree Protection Plan.
But, in many varied and significant ways, it has failed to
do so. This failure destroys the Applicant's evidence for
satisfying the Criteria for issuance of a Permit for
Removing the Alder, an issue on which Applicant bears the
burden of proof.
Yet, there is even more at stake here than a mere
failure to carry an Applicant's burden of proof.
Increasingly complex planning applications arrive at
the Planning Dept. all the time. Neither Staff, nor the
citizen volunteers who fill the Tree Commission (or the
other City Commissions for that matter) have the time to
independently verify all the many facts asserted in those
Applications.
Nor should they be expected to do so. After all, each
Application is supposed to be accompanied by a formal
certification, signed by the Applicant, that:
"...the statements and information contained in
(the) application, including the enclosed draw-
ings and the required findings of fact, are in
all respects true and correct."
31
1.1.,
Sec.18.61.050 of the City Code is clear. When an
Applicant misrepresents any fact necessary to the City's
determination for granting a tree removal permit, the
permit 'shall' be invalidated.
This law should be enforced.
And, if it is, a message will be sent to all future
planning applicants by this Commission and the City - that
misrepresentations within planning applications will not
be tolerated. After that, it will hopefully be a long time
before anyone plays games with their planning
applications. The faith that the planning staff and the
citizens commission must place in the accuracy of planning
representations will then be more justified. Real estate
developments will proceed or not proceed on their merits,
not upon manipulations. The entire town will benefit.
And all you have to do to accomplish this is to ask
that the law be enforced.
Randall Hopkins
.~~ i
3~
ltv 01 AshlanCl- MUNICl1-"AL CULl!::.
-7
~
!f 2
I
http://ww\v.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodeID= 1534
18.61.200 Tree Protection
r Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or
bu i1d i ng perm it.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to
conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading,
excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action
or building permit.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a
plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the
site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the
site;
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer,
irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements;
d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches;
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for
implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall
include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and
recommendations for treatment for each tree.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection
measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development
activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition
work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including
landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther
than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or
dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian
areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed.
3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the
fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been
obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but
not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste
items, equipment, or parked vehicles.
6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and
liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or
dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur
within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
1
C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except
3/29/04 1:02 PW
31
:11
:;h: of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE
I,. I. ~
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.as p?CodeID= 1 5,
installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the
installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading
permit has been issued by the City.
CORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
4 .
bf2
'f~
3/29/04 1:02 PN
>t;y of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint. asp?CodeID= 1522
18.61.020 Definitions
A. Arborist means a person who has met the criteria for certification from the
International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists, and
maintains his or her accreditation.
B. Caliper Inch refers to a manner of expressing the diameter inches of a tree as
calculated by measuring the tree's circumference and dividing by Pi (approximately
3.14159). Specially calibrated "diameter tapes" or "calipers" are used to determine
caliper inches.
C. Dead Tree means a tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include
unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth during the
growing season.
--7
D. Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the think, at its
maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean ground level at
the base of the trunk.
rEo Dripline means an imaginary vertical line extending downward from the
L outermost tips of a tree's branches to the ground.
F. Heritage Tree means any tree listed on the official City of Ashland Heritage Tree
list adopted by the City Council.
G. Immediate danger of collapse means that the tree may already be leaning, with
the; surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will
topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be
obtained through the non-. emergency process. "Immediate danger of collapse" does
not include hazardous conditions that can be alleviated by pruning or treatment.
H. Person means any individual or legal entity.
--:7
1. Removal means to cut down a tree, or remove 500/0 or more of the crown, trunk,
or root system of a tree; or to damage a tree so as to cause the tree to decline and/or
die. "Removal" includes topping. "Removal" includes but is not limited to damage
inflicted upon a root system by application of toxic substances, operation of equipment
and vehicles, storage of materials, change of natural grade due to unapproved
excavation or filling, or unapproved alteration of natural physical conditions.
"Removal" does not include normal trimming or pruning of trees.
J. Significant Tree means a "tree" having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
K. Staff Advisor means the Planning Director or the Planning Director's designee.
--7
L. Topping means the severe cutting back of a tree's limbs to stubs 3 inches or
larger in diameter within the tree's crown to such a degree so as to remove the natural
canopy and disfigure the tree. Topping does not include the practice of "pollarding"
when conducted in accordance with the standards established by the International
Society of Arboriculture.
M. Tree means any woody plant having a trunk six caliper inches or larger in
2
'-If
3/29/04 1:02 Pty
III
it" of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE
I.I.[
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodeID=66~.
~~
/
--7
, .
, 'f2
7""
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required
I1Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities:
A. Develop~ent, as define~ i~ 18.62.030.0, in areas iden.tified as Flood plain Corridor
Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint land.
S. Tree removal, as defined in 18.62.030.RT., in areas identified as Flood plain
Corridor Land and Riparian Preserve.
C. Commercial logging, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land, Riparian
Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint Land.
D. Tree removal, in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land,
except that a permit need not be obtained for tree removal that is not associated with
development, and done for the purposes of wildfire management and carried out in
accord with a Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the Fire Chief.
E. If a development is part of a Site Review, Performance Standards Development,
Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then the
Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning Action.
F. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning Action, as noted in Subsection
S, then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed as a Staff Permit.
G. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a more extensive development that
would require a master site plan, or other planning action, the Staff Advisor shall
require that all necessary applications be filed simultaneously.
G" Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring
a Physical Constraints Review:
1. The plans shall contain the following:
a. Project name.
b. Vicinity map.
c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger) utilizing the
largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper. Multiple plans or layers shall be prepared at
the same scale, excluding detail drawings.
d. North arrow.
e. Date.
f. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the
boundary of the proposed development.
g. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
h. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures within
the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be
removed.
i. Location and size of all public utilities affected by the proposed development.
j. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the
proposed development. Location of all other easements.
A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of not less than two feet nor
greater than five feet. The topographic map shall also include a slope analysis,
indicating buildable areas, as shown in the graphic.
I. Location of all parking areas and spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site
circulation.
m Accurate locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, all
trees as required in 18.62.080.0.1, including those of a caliper equal to or greater than
six inches d.b.h., native shrub masses with a diameter of ten feet or greater, natural
drainage, swales, wetlands, ponds, springs, or creeks on the site, and outcroppings of
rocks, boulders, etc. Natural features on adjacent properties potentially impacted by
the proposed development shall also be included, such as trees with driplines extending
across property lines. In forested areas, it is necessary to identify only those trees
L/~
3/29/04 1:02 PIV
;ty of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE
hUp:/ /v..'ww .ashland.or. us/ CodePrint.asp?CodeID= 1522
diameter at breast height (DBH). If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground,
but below 4.5 feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split,
and is considered one tree if greater than six inches DBH. Plants commonly planted as
shrubs, including but not limited to English laurel, photinia, arborvitae, poison oak,
English holly, and English ivy shall not be considered a "tree". Trees specifically
planted and maintained as a hedge shall also not be considered a "tree".
N. Tree Account means an account established by resolution of the Council for the
receipt of funds to be utilized for future tree purposes, as outlined in the resolution.
O. Tree Removal Permit means written authorization from the City for a tree
removal to proceed as described in an application, such authorization having been
given in accordance with this chapter.
n. Tree Protection Zone means the area reserved around a tree or group of trees in
--7 which no grading, access, stockpiling or other construction activity shall occur as
determined by the Staff Advisor based on review of the tree and site conditions.
(ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
2
J./3
3/29/04 1:02 PI\
'jtv of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE
1.1.1
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodeID= 152~
--? ["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.
,-----7
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.
r-;. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree
l that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor
may require the building footprint of the develoRment to be staked to allow for
accurate verification of the permit apPlication;g;
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;
@;
0. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
L densities! sizes! canopies! and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
~
/
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination! the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees! so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a
condition of approval of the permit.
CORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
1 Df 2
4~
3/29/04 1 :03 ptv
:ity of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp ?CodeID=66~
which will be affected or removed by the proposed development. Indicate any
contemplated modifications to a natural feature.
n. The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control, and tree protection
for the development as required by this chapter.
o. Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that contain only
buildable area, as defined by this Chapter.
p. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation lines.
q. Location of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways, building
sites, and other construction areas. Indicate total area of disturbance, total percentage
of project site proposed for disturbance, and maximum depths and heights of cuts and
fill.
r. Location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts associated
with the proposed development.
s. Applicant name, firm preparing plans, person responsible for plan preparation, and
plan preparation dates shall be indicated on all plans.
t. Proposed timeline for development based on estimated date of approval, including
completion dates for specific tasks.
2. Additional plans and studies as required in Sections 18.62.070, 18.62.080, 18.62.090
and 18.62.100 of this Chapter.
1. 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. COrd 2834 51, 1998)
COrd. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added,
12/02/1997)
.. j
2
JfS'
3/29/04 1:02 PN,
=lty of Ashland - MUNiCIPAL CUVb
l.l.i
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodeID= 1527
18.61.050 Plans Required
A. An application for all Tree Removal and Tree Topping Permits shall be made
upon forms prescribed by the City. The application for a Tree Removal Permits shall
contain:
a. The number, size, species and location of the trees proposed to be removed or
topped on a site plan of the property.
b. The anticipated date of removal or topping.
c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping.
d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace
the trees to be removed, and
e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or topped have been clearly
identified on the property for visual inspection.
f. Any other information reasonably required by the City.
B. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the application complies with
the criteria for approval of the applicable class of permit. If the application is for a
Tree Removal-Staff Permit, the applicant shall submit specific written findings and
evidence addressing the criteria in section 18.61.080 for issuance of a Tree
Removal-Staff Permit.
.~
/'
C. Misrepresentation of any fact necessary for the City's determination for granting
a tree removal permit shall invalidate the permit. The City may at any time, including
after a removal has occurred, independently verify facts related to a tree removal
request and, if found to be false or misleading, may invalidate the permit and process
the removal as a violation. Such misrepresentation may relate to matters including,
without limitation, tree size, location, health or hazard condition, justification for
issuance of permit, or owner's authorized signature.
~
CORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
~ --
1 Dr 1
4&
3/29/04 1 :03 PW
~ity of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE
http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodeID= 1308
-?
~.112.090 Penalties
I Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent employee, or otherwise,
! violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this Title has committed
an infraction, and upon conviction thereof is punish-able as prescribed ,in Section
1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Such person, firm, or corporation is guilty of a
separate violation for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of
this Title is committed or continued by such person, firm or corporation. COrd. 2052,
1979).
4 j
1
'-17
3/30/04 8:56 AN
itv of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE
l.1.1
http://www .ashland.or. lls/CodePnnt.asp'!CodelD= j
1.08.020 Infractions
'---:7
A person who commits an infraction by violating designated provisions of the Ashland
Municipal Code shall not suffer any disability or legal disadvantage based upon
conviction of crime. The penalty for committing an infraction shall be a fine not to
exceed $500; however, each and every day during any portion of which any infraction
is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, is a separate violation
subject to a separate fine of $500.00 and such person shall be punished accordingly.
The trial of any infraction shall be by the Court without a jury. The City of Ashland
shall have the burden of proving the infraction by a preponderance of the evidence and
the Defendant may not be required to be a witness in the trial of such infraction. At
any trial involving an infraction, the City Attorney shall not appear unless the
Defendant is represented by an attorney. Further, at any such trial, defense counsel
shall not be provided at public expense. COrd. 1934, 51, 1977; Ord. 2233, 1983)
t i'
,f 1
Lf?
3/30/04 8:57 AM
n
~i '
i~ :(
h~
F~
,i:~~
11",11
~III~,
'~i~
irrlf
'fIb
II
~~g~ ~~ ~
h~~ '-~ ;j
-~~c> ~ ~
~..~~ · i1
1 to R
;~i ~ 0
t'I;.. i n
~~g a ~
~~i .. i
C>
m
f;l
~
.i Hl ~j il !liJl HiI Ilff lUl Hill' IJ H U r ~
i~ lj~ii U i Jf Ml Ill! ltl 'Hi ~!J H! l! J! I ~
\ ~ J I~uf ~J'f t.w ". :; . ~'~.P; <l~ " ;;
. ~s ~ u t. · J ' Is i, h ~ ~ & I ~ 1 ~ ....
!~ ~~ ~ ~Jil !,i~- t~ H ~'1 i J; qf ~~ ~ ~
U H i 2~h' 1i H U ~!I'~ !In; lq
I ~ ~~ 11 : . i rl Ii i ~ ;~ H ~ : H[ ~ i
11 1! i It!~ ~1 ~f Ii ~~ I ~:€1 i~ ?
JI 5' 1 fill il 41 ~ at PJ!~ 8~ f
! ~I i ltm: :.. ,! 8 ~I b I ii !l l!
c' l\ l I. H~ , J. 1\ ,U I
If it i i il I Sf. ~ it J1~
I! 'i c ns h I H !l i I H i!,'
n ~HHH H~ H~H Hf l 1 i 1-,.1 JI II ~s Ii I iq i~ tf
u' H r H , n r n f i f h U i h ,c, & .ll~ ~J
1 }I If II Ii II I ~ a l~
I d, ~ Ii : q H
q
rn
~ ~; ~~ ..; C>C> ~ ~
s f:;
i:l ; g
q~~ r"l ::: rn
0 ~ ~ ~
rT1 ~ .'. ~ e~
C? ~~' ~ 0
~ ....
...... :> t""
..; =
N 0 "7. 2
N z
C) C')
C)
~
~.,.'(~
4,')Q; oj>~
~ ~.. ;
;, ill i
~... C>
"~cr .
e 1::1 """"oil
1%.' '~
~;J i ~ ~3 i, ;t\
:H ~ll I ill" i1 /, .' ..
~ ~ !'I f ~~! : / 'C" " ;:: ,.
l: ~ ~ z" . '/ "
it P e.'.
I ~; ~, .,...\'
_ i:l~ "e'
l--
\
I
-:t
",
Lft:J
(EXHIBITl)18
1.1:
'~\'~"', _'//1' ~
- -.~'-'.'-...- .,"
~::.:..:.'::~:;:___-::::~~:=_ .::.: J
I
I
I
I
I
~-~-
.'-' --;;:::.-
-,;;::';;-
. :;::::-
.,;:;:-
.-::/
.". ,;;::::-
.,~
...;;'?'
./.....- ------
/ ------
.~
---
......
'....""
....,
'- EXISTIN<Sr
"\, SUII-DINGS
.............. .............
"'--.
'"
'''--
''',
---.........-...----.
......,..".
...........
"",...,
'.
......,
'....
.....~---,~--...
- --------..----.
-----.--------
'--..~
----~~~~~~-------
---~._-...-
~-~~=-==-~==-~::-
---.
So
\,
~
"./
//'~
-
---- ----
~
'--
--.------------...--.-
"t
::':':::.::::-.=.:::~==:--.
ti
,.,.
~
TREE PRESERVATION
!:'evelcprnent Ccr>t=~. .Jc:m &olb-c:oith, (541) 110-1'164
~:,r =H~~~t,Q ~~fc:11 ~~~ir~/~~".~~: ~~~J~~Q.;,' =-plal.
::~,~ ~;.~~ ~~~.~~ ~~~e~o,yQ;;" ~;'~~;~v..
~~I~ ~t~l~an_r:=-~I~~~~~atl<:l~~~~f'i~t
e.fo~" cry "q~pn.nt crrtve. on .ite tile I~ Cl,."h1U~t ~II .:c,.,..,lt ....'th .~atl""
~s-or
C-<:>ne~t~ ~d T,._
He> ~c:>n$~llon Q(:tlvl~ /:If CW'Ilj ~ tholl ""'''vr ,.,lthir'l th<J tr_ pl"c:0t6c~1or'l Z~, ;,cllldng. I::oIi NIt
~~~c:l~~_~ 1I1:orago of II'oQUrlal. lll/dl ~ bvlldlrg llvppll.... ..,11. .-18. eqv~.
Pt'\II'\/rlg of tr_
~t."?r:fl~ ~~~'~%~ ~~~b~ =":a~~I~~~
M"oIOf'l'W'rt.
~
~~:, ~~~ ~~~~~ ~_~~",..~~Cl~~~ Q~:~~ ~r-
NM6OI" ler tno F"""J~t.
Gne(n1Go1 M<:U,.\QI ~l
~ V_ f't'~tIDl'l z_ w~ rCl/l1Cl" Ireo of dIom~II':l1r1J"""1c>\Ja ~IQIII Q'1d I/Q,Vlds avc;h c:::a
~~~~~~O:''''9",~~r.".,.. ~I..... f't'C'd"'u. c:rld =1'lCI""te er cry ..all e~"".
Tr.. f'r...".,~ Pr~.
~~~~r~/~I:~~~t~~~~~~ih~ ~~~n~~~c::.... of
tr_ f'I"H"rvCltlon crc;:ll.lnd ~ltrc trees. TM L-crIdacClp<f NcHf~t tholl clOtomt"'" II mc:rual
~t pr'l.l'lIl'lS e/'lc>ulc:l tw de". ~."... cc:netn>c Clem I:legrne.
lSr'clde ~
l'lc7 9'"Cldo ~"9'" m"'J ~<;l.J' ..lth" !he crlp Itl" e>t ""Iatlng v".1I to ~1IHTlQ/r'l.
~"'klg of T,.....
k'!j V"" ClQrnc:ICl<'Cl ~ c.".,.tn>ctlon~~ or removll>d ...ltnovt <:l CIty e>f """'Ia>c:l ~QV"d
P""'""llt lIhc::llJlt:>ll'nolcl Eo C1l:!f o~ .....hICll'll:l{~ le.bl.~ P<ilI'lClltje,s.
T,._ Mltlgat~
~~'::.~~~inI~~c:>t"~~<t.,.,~~I.~~cWc:IoJ~~~ ~
TREE INVENTORY
. ~1E5 O&! ~1l1 ~ caNDITI~ ~COMMENPA"I016
(I) Ar~ f'\II:lrO "". c:.oc:td P'le_
I~) ...._~, --- ...-. 6clc:td 0Ml ~ite
7,) -~~._.._-~ . 6clc:td 0Ml ~iUo
f..) -'-.--- l..ccr'll"'" ~t.oocrd 0Ml ~iUo
(5) r~__ ~. LAa\lt>CI _t.oocrd 0Ml $iUo
(6) I~,;::::;;:-~ A';'::-";;;':' ... """'00 0Ml SiU
(;) -'--.--- """'c:td OMlSita
(t>) 1..._- ~. """'00 em !>iUo
(q) :.-:::.-:...- ~. &oc:td em 5!t$
(10) :.-..--- 'A' """'c:td OMI 5ite
(~) _ .c -.... ,.,. Ml.-ltHI''IInl<. DQI'/lClood ~~a...,j"", 0Ml !>ite
(12) ....-,,-- 10.; 6clOO ot1I $ite
7i3T ....~,-- 10.' 6clOO 0111 5ito
(14) . -...--- 6clod 0111 ~
(15) .....-.--- 6c>OO 0Ml eiUo
(/6) I............... 6c>.::>d 0111 5iU
(11) 1..........,- 6,; I"Mtl~ 600d OI11SiUo
(Ie) ,~. """'00 0Ml~
(Iq) I")' 6000 0Ml !rIt6
(X)) ,.,-;' 6c>OO 0Fil 5~
(:21) ,..,. 6000 0Fil 5iUo
22)<< A,,... .;:L. Hca beotI to"",..d J"nr,e . ~t
~)' ..-. I,~. 6clod "'""'- << ~t
24)<< ...,~. II"" 6clod "'""'- . ~ t
(25) ..-- _ 1,.:1.. 6c><:>d I"rvIe
(21)) "',- I,.. 6c><:>d I"ruI<t
(:n) A'N_ ..................... I<v.. T""'----< Prot4OG t
-(:;:b) "'_..._~ I,.,. MvI~l-tn.nk ,..~t
· -n.. Arc:hI~t ~ UII"'9 I~1ng6 I"4HUl or. e~lv.s to .......r"9 as ~ t'OOU _ pOHIbIe.
"
TREE Pf<OTECTIYE FENc.INlSo
f..XISTING TREE TO ~AJN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
..'........-.
EXISTING- TFlEe TO ~MAIN
E- ORlPLlHE · EXISTING TReE
trYP )
r PfltOTEC.T1YE ~ FENCING
c.oNTI~ ~ TREE -
~f NOTeS THIS sree-r FCR
MATERIALS.
I
(2)SECTION - TREE FROrrECTIVE FENCING
5c<l1., 1/2'. r-o'
),rl.'~"~
$'1
'III
--
GAl!.BRAITB I; ASSOCl'ATES, INC.
LANDSCAPE ARCmmCI'S
SITE PLANNERS
Or..EGONUCENSE No.Z~4 (C.A..:l98O)
14$ S. He'LL Y St, SUITE A
MEDFORD, OREGON
97$01
TEL: $41-770-7964
FAX: $41-770-$164
--
~c,.'STEli'~
~ 0
.\ b 2f\\liM ·
~t
-J. aR:I:COft I:t/
0<,\1: 04/07/rsa ~~
0""PE ,.y-C~
SHASTA BUllLDING
'03
ASHLAND, OREGON
- -
REVISIONS:
6:.-----..---.--"'----____________
6:.____-=--_________..__
TREE PRESERVATION
lOB NCl;
!Ssm J>A'IE:
DRAWN BY:
2EVlEWEDBY,
ioBSUn1S:
ceM
~
NJlI J.L
~.
DEe 1 2 2003
--rrr (1~ \
~
c01
I-
...
m
-
:J:
><
W
-
-
..
.
......
a~
~
*
~
.....
"
-
[
r
I
f --_.-.-
l.1t
,....:.
I
I
I
~'" ,J
'" -\H
'. -- -.-\ I
,,=-.
. \ f;
~-~-----~ - .. ..;. ./ + )
~:-;-;- s tr'E E T
./'
/.
'-,
\ )./
, \ . /////
~' ///
/ //-
/' /
/ ,/
~". /
, /'
-A
\\
---~
,,--
;"
;
-- //
-- ........... ///
~ .
~-~_\_-_.-
--/
- / ,
/-- ,
/~ \
II-
(,~
\~
~~
,~
""-- PROFOSED
eRIDlSE
~
,.IB
I *',:::!
:; t
'\ . .;."':-::/........
, " ... .... '/' ;'~:...
.....---...
- SURF AC,e
~A T'MENT IN TREE
PRO TEe. TION ZONE
,
~
~
.;
.;
;
\ ~...,.(>
PROPOSED
BUILDING
EXISTING
BUILDINGS
::s
,....----........
""
"
,
,
\
\
\ I
C:/') 19
x ,/
/ "---. -- ,/
C;~
-'0'-
~ '
I:
p
III
~
~
, -:'-". '.1
'-, '1 ""1
~~~~ H ~
~. ~~~ ~ ~
\to\P~< ..;
~ n n R
ij;~~ ~-4
u~ ~ ~
~~g ~ ~
~~~ rn Z
~
~
n1
~
~
"
~
~
!I: I
. ,
-I
z \
\\
'\
\:\
\\
\
I@!P
rg; o~~
. "
~ j h~
~9 Ii-
(I; h~
~ Il
)> I 'I
:~ I
~
~ ~ ~ ;t
~ I ! ~
I o i
> ~
~ ,
~
u
': HlIH il nn! nH IIiff fUJ Hi! tIll H H f~
r I ~ iil ui illlHI Iff! !i~ IHi ~1j 1 ~~ il jn ~
f ~ J.'l ~i J i~ui,.j~fj.ti~i ~i .f;~~ :!l'~~;iiq
. ~ l tho ! i "ra!l 'l~ < t. .~ k-<
~'i \iiE~\~I_~. "I iJi'~:~~
........~i h H t J:;I;~ <l!JI 1] 'l~~ !~-~h.{
~R 11 I il~ if !zh ~ l~l c ~i t: ~~ ~.
I U ~~ ; ~ i.,} Ii 'I'P ;: ~R I 'i ~.f ~d
~ 11 !~ i iil! }'l 11 I~ t\ pq~;n
i j"l ~I ~ Jh,~1 ~!! ~ :t t!~ J~ 8~ f
g \ e 1 lh~ ~ :1 tl j' ! :' / i!
~ ~: It i ill ~1 fil U f~ ! I: fh~
IE i. · T i. .ij it J l : t I I- (2
r I I. {I ~I-!I ]i U' is H I i~ i.l.i
I i ~ 11 n " 1~ ; ; "s Ji ~i
fill H .If U ~f. l ~ 1 ~;.
> ~ t .1 If iu Ii' :~
i I! . I i 1= ~~ t ! ~
- 'l · J I I !'
,
H9H 9 HHH
un u ,u
~ ~~~i ooj
~ ~;~~ ~
- ;a
f.:l
~~I ~
:l
o
z
I>i>S
, : I ~
~
Ii i
z
Vl
~
Vl
~
==
IH~
F
1:7
Z
~
~\l'l] .
4.,," I~.jl~
; !rl~j
~/ f:>~
"4>CT
.53
20
ill
l.l.i
Page 1
Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
For Shasta Building '03
January 29, 2004
(EXHIBIT~ J
TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
~~\SfEIl~
. 254 ·
~~~
~ OREGON ~
~~ 04I071B9 ~
CtPE ~,-,y
Contrary to popular belief, the root systems of trees are not deep taproots in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top
12 - 18" from the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's dripline or canopy. See tree
and root section drawing Figure 1.
A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy,
vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying.'" If roots on one side of a tree are
severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old and mature trees are less tolerant of construction impacts than
younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups.
~(
./
The species tolerances for trees to be retained within the Shasta Building project are as follows:
RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS2
RFl.A1lVE
COMMON NAME SOENI1FICNAl\1E TOlERANCE COMMFNIS
BigleafMaple Acer macrophyllum Poor Declines following the addition of fill
Alder Alnus sp. Poor Intolerant of root injury
Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Moderate Moderately tolerant of root pruning.
The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by
species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree.
i .
i i
I Matheny, N. & Clark, J. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land
Development. p. 72.
2 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178.
FEB 1 3 2004
st
Landscape Architects & Site Planners 21
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
~6I.:.dlU<U> dHU lYHUULt:::i
~
ill
http://www.ashland.or.us/AgendasResul ts.asp? AMID= 1585
PLANNING ACTION 2004-001 is a request for Outline Plan approval and a Tree
Removal Permit for a ten-unit residential subdivision under the Performance
Standards Option for the 2.4 acre property located at 940 Clay Street (east side
of Clay Street, south of Siskiyou Boulevard). Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 14 CB; Tax
Lots: 600.
APPLICANT: Cota Homes, LLC
Staff and the Commission reviewed the proposed plans. The landscape and
irrigation plan will be reviewed at the time of the Final Plan application. John
Galbraith, Landscape Consultant and George Cota, Applicant were present for
any questions. After some discussion, the Commission recommended the
following: Landscape Plan to be reviewed with Final Plan application. Trees to be
preserved shall have fencing around the dripline and ideally the root zone. Tree
protection measures noted in ALUO 18.61.200 shall be implemented prior to any
site disturbance. All associated tree protection fencing shall be flush with the
grade and fencing posts shall not penetrate into the root zone.
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 Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit
"development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax
Lot: 9800.
APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines
Staff and the Commission reviewed the proposed plans. Staff noted the project
_ would be heard by the Planning Commission in February due to floodplain issues.
C Staff noted that the large White Alder Tree is proposed to be removed and the
three multiple-trunk trees (Acer) near the floodplain are proposed to be saved.
John Galbraith, Landscape Consultant and Lloyd Haines, Applicant were present.
Mr. Haines noted his desire to retain the large Alder tree, but due to its location,
the arborists' report and the City's Main Street Design Standards, he is asking
for the tree's removal. He expressed his desire to make some form of sculpture or
publiC art from the tree.
After much discussion, the Commission recommended the following:
Tree protection measures as noted in ALUO 18.61.200 shall be implemented
prior to any site disturbance for trees along creek. All associated tree protection
fencing shall be flush with the grade and fencing posts shall not penetrate into
the root zone. Tree protection signs, as noted in ALUO 18.61.200, shall be
installed and visible from the construction zone. Avoid compaction in root zone
and use plywood or wood chips. Mitigate loss of large White Alder within adjacent
State right-of-way. Mitigate with large specimen tree listed in the Recommended
Street Tree List. Consider State right-of-way as "gateway" for future public art.
Commission suggests that the Public Arts Commission, applicant, City staff and
ODOT work with Tree Commission to create a plan for that area that is safe while
restoring and enhancing this "gateway."
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 located 987 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R- 2; Assessor's Map #: 39 lE 10
CB; Tax Lot 6600.
APPLICANT: Marc and Aaron Heller
22
3/22/04 12: 16 PM
5'~
I.. I!
fg
APPLICANT'S CANTILEVERED PROTUBERANCE ON THE
BACK OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING REACHING TO ASHLAND
CREEK. THIS DRAWING IS FROM APPLICANT'S DECEMBER
2003 SITE PLAN. THE PROTUBERANCE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY
OVER THE MAPLE, APPEARS NUMEROUS TIMES ON THE SITE
if PLAN/ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, BUT NOT ON THE TREE PLAN
5(,
23
l i
-
-------
'\.
.. ~
· ~ c
. :- ~-~..'~.-
D HI ... I.... '---
:.-y'\'
~~..
... ".2: .,; 1 u ..
.1, , I
X7J.lJ
~~.V
Nocr05'3O"E 79.04' ^
.~' ;7~--N:!1
I ___ ~ /1 \ WOf4=:'u, r
y (I "'--- uq,o,,'~
MEN 0-'1\ \ ; l
~J.1 ~. fT fJ.. I ,QJ ~==~
- -- --- ------.- - -. -.-- '.., ,
'~ Ti' - ,..
NEW RESTAURAHT
, ~J~ING _~ ____
NET MfA, ~3& ~. fT.
---
KITCHEN
HfT IiAfA, G1.S6 ~. fT.
1970.06 sa. FT.. MAIol 8UII.DING ENClOSURE
899.04 sa. FT. . DECK & CIRCUlATION
/.:
,
. ./ ....
.// >, X ;<X'>(').. )</;~::c'<,)("<;::~<>< ). >~"x ;<)~
',<~>f ;./ ">.x;/.: ):: x'/~< )( x'/.x ,.... X y ...~)(;.-' ~)':~-~y.~A:::-.-,,~.:)~;>\'::~><),.,;,<x,,>";"''':''/''.':1
~
t:'ATOI
= ....
IA .
oci.~ ........
1'1'111~ '.II:t1 .1
1 I I , I I 1 1 II 'I ler t rol .'-; > d' .,:, 'C
I I I , , I 1 I'"
: : : : : : : : I f'lI llRT <' "f..; .... .....
.. 11'-~~'" ... .---.--.. Em\Frarl.l.!) 'w:! :~ - -~ - .--- : - -- -. -'- ._- -- ...,.-,..-,.--. -.._-_._~
IEl ~ EXIST ~ flI'.lIW'" I
I lI.c:cc.'< .0<, -!! .'. -- ..... - --:nJ
'.,':..: :." ,..'y ',.,.,.... )( ".- ~
". ~I<:
'y.. .0'/"';..' .....;.....u__~ ;........ .;.,.u_
.~:.~.~<.'/>/.".. '>'. ','
r - -,- - I
:r ~ :
.
.'
-,
. I
f.~
.
.
'.. ::IlJ
.
~
'l"
OUTDOOR DINING BELOW
~
~
BOTH THE FLOOR PLANS SUBMITTED IN DEC. 2003
AND FEB. 2004 SHOW THE PROTUBERANCE THAT
WOULD BE BUilT DIRECTLY OVER THE TRIPLE MAPLE
AS THE DASHED EXTENTION SHOWN ON THE RIGHT
HAND OF THIS PLAN.
BUT THE TREE BLOCKING PROTUBERANCE NEVER
MADE IT TO THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN.
24
S7
III
l.1.i
2
3
4
RAMP . SECOND LEVEl
"
,.
"
"
..
..
.,
APr' THIRD LEVEL
"
"
"
"
"
.,
"
\\
"
1\
~
1912.50 ~
ROOF Leva
OFfICE . SECOND LEVEL
\ .- ~
IHKJ u:va
I
~
b
1888.50
SECQC) LFJEl
..
"
"
"
:: RECEPTION I DINING DECK .
\: FIRST LEVEL
187SM~Te*-~ _ I "
EXGASH CRK. . ---------------_~___ :: H'fWJX.EJlSlMlGlWlE 1
BM.IGRU.R.R ~~__------ ~~~::r...~_~------- _
N'PAOl<_~=r--------- .-;. . .....1~:. ":1'" ~,.7~~~-~~-:~. ~-
IB.OW....-..olNG tJEY(H) . :
c.I:::::::::~~: _____
IEl.OW~
SOl. "'_IlPlCNB>~
F\.OOO I'I.MO AU._ HlDOlIOfW.
S1'OaiI WA"mI' S"rCIUlGE N!IEA
t
18n JlO
flK:i 1 U:YU 1115.50
m~v- ---~;~~~ ~
~~m __ _____~~~~_ ~~~_
DINIoIG lEVEL FEMA 8-F.
,.
..
HERE THE CANTILEVERED PROTUBERANCE
APPEARS ON THE FEB. 2004 BUILDING SECTIONS
OF APPLICANT'S ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS.
THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE BASE OF
THE TRIPLE MAPLE IS MARKED WITH AN 'X'
, II
25
5~
CRAIG A. 3TONE & ASSOC~~\TES,.LTD.
Consulta nts in Urban Pla nni ng and Developmen t
708 Cardley Avenue. Medford, Oregon 97504-6124
Telephone: (541) 779-0569 . Fax: (541) 779-0114 . E-mail: cstone@cstoneassociates.com
May 21, 2003
MR. JOHN McLAUGHLIN
Planning Director
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: REQUEST FOR PRE-APPLlCA TION CONFERENCE
Shasta Building No.3: Lloyd Haines, Applicant
Dear Mr. McLaughlin:
Enclosed are preliminary plans which depict the intentions of my client, Lloyd Haines regarding the construction
of improvements on land that he owns in downtown Ashland, adjacent to Ashland Creek. In addition to minor
improvements, the plans contemplate:
.
Construction of a new building on Tax Lot 9800 (39-1 E-9BB).
.
Removal of an existing wood deck and replacement with concrete decks.
.
Removal of an existing bridge and replacement with a new drawbridge in a slightly different location.
Also contemplated (but not shown on the plans) are landscaping improvements beneath Lithia Waywithin the
public right-of-way and the removal of a tree on Tax Lot 9800.
Applicant would appreciate infonnation and feedback regarding the land use applications that will need to be
obtained and the relevant substantive approval criteria for each. Applicant would also appreciate your opinions
regarding these plans.
Please advise of the date/time/place for the pre-application conference. Enclosed is a check in the amount of
$100 to cover the conference costs.
Also enclosed are the following plans:
1. One copy of a full set of design drawings.
2. One 24 x 36 sheet which illustrates existing from proposed improvements in plan view
3. One 8-~ x 11 of the above #2 plan
Please advise if additional infonnation or materials are needed.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Enclosures
5r
26
ce. Lloyd Haines
III
~
~
rf'
:i
''\ ~
..,
~ ~
,.. 10
^
-,~ -
a Z.
~ "if
~
Z
~
~
-
{
! ~
.. .
. ,'\
- - --~~
- \.
/
--
~
2:
~
.-
0_
T"I
~
v
-f
z:
G\
'(5\
=i
{II
U-'--. _
tIauo_ .
:"~~m
541) flUl~
L 1.1
March 8, 2004
~~{:.'
\:'~~~;~~<,,"
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines
To Whom It May Concern:
A revised tree protection plan is being submitted with the following adjustments and
clarifications.
1.) It is my professional opinion that the Acer Macrophyllum mentioned previously
as three separate trees (#22, 23 and 24 on the tree protection plan) is actually one
tree. This has been corroborated by Tom Myers, certified Arbonst with Upper
Limb-it Tree Service.
2.) The tree protection plan has been modified and is being re-submitted to reflect
one tree with three trunks. One trunk will be shortened to allow for the proposed
building (see plan). It will no~ be taken completely out so that it can be observed
for deterioration (see Tom Myers' letter). Minor pruning will need to be
performed on the two remaining trunks.
3.) It is my professional opinion that the required pruning will remove less than 50%
of the tree's canopy.
4.) Tree protection fencing has been added to the ODOT property contiguous to the
northwest property line.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
J:1ciL
John Galbraith, ASLA
Landscape Architect
27
~I
145 S. Holly STREET, SUiTE A · MEdfoRd, OR 97501 · (541) 770-7964 · FAX (541) 770-5164
UCENSEd . BONdEd . INSUREd . lANdSCApE BusINESS #6661 . lANdSCAPE CONTRACTOR #12~98 . GENERAl. CONlRACTOR #104274 . lANdSCApE ARCHin:CT OR-#254, (A-#2980
www.galbraithandassociates.com.contact@galbraithandassociates.com
il'l
L II
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
AP"-JMENTS · THIRD LEVEL
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
OFFICE · SECOND LEVEL
I
I I
I I
---
I I
I I
I I
__ .J..l....,
_______.J
APPROx. NEW GRADE
BElOW BULDING
SOIL MATERIAL REMOVED FROM
FLOOD PLAIN ALLOWING ADOmONAL
STORM WATER STORAGE AREA
WHILE THE CREEKSIDE PROTUBERANCE HAS NOW BEEN
REMOVED FROM THE PLANS, THIS MARCH 2004 BUILDING
SECTION DRAWING SHOWS THAT THE 2ND/3RD LEVELS
STILL EXTEND BEYOND THE FIRST FLOOR. THIS EXTENTION
IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOOTPRINT LABELED "PROPOSED
BUILDING" ON THE TREE PLAN, INSTEAD APPEARING AS
THE UNDEFINED DASHED LINE ON THE REAR PART OF THE
FOOTPRINT
~;L
28
il
?1
III
fD)~@~O\Yl~~
ill] APR 2 3 2004 ~
RANDALL A. HOPKINS
735 S. Mountain Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
541-488-0265
521-488-2823 (fax)
By
4-23-2004
TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
The letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal in Planning Action 2004-002 (88 North
Main Street). I am qualified as a party to this action, since I participated in the public hearing
before the Planning Commission, both orally and in writing.
The date of the decision being appealed is April 13, 2004, with notice of the
Findings, Conclusions and Orders on this action being mailed on April 15, 2004.
The grounds for this appeal are as follows:
1. Applicant has failed to comply with Sections 18.61.200A2, 18.62.040H,
18.61.050, 18.112.090, and 1.08.020 of the Municipal Code, and has violated same.
2. Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable Criteria for Issuance of a Tree
Removal permit under 18.61.080 of the Code and filed an incomplete application and
evidence.
3. The proposed development fails to. fulfill the City's Large Scale
Development site standards.
4. Removal of the tree sought to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the
City's site design standards.
5. Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings below in violation of
Sec. 18.108.100 of the Code.
The applicable appeal fee is attached.
I ask that this appeal be placed on the City Council meeting for May 18, 2004, if
possible. L(~~~
iO~~;(H~ .
1:0 I, 1,0(1 80 1,1: t~ooo q 2 r, ~ 2 221
OtWlWi) aooa . . ,
11.1. RANDAll A. HOPKINS, neE.
.11' MARY H. HOPKINS, neE.
It RANDALL & MARY HOPKINS FAM TR
735 S. MOUNTAIN AVE. '.
. ASHLAND, OR 9752 -3243
Pay to the Cl
-Lf
// 1487
Yo/v> /~;/ 25-80144.
( I~ / ( Date
tl61 ~
~ 0. -<My
Dollars l.!J E:~..
~~~~a S curities
...
\fK
Notice of Land Use Appeal (Ashland Municipal Code 9 18.108.11 0.A.2)
A. Name(s) of Person(s) Filing Appeal:
1. 4--fJ t> It-LL If 7 3S"" 5' flU/-)J)) () J-
2. ~...tf;- ff-f-&7.G~- 97SM
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the
appeal.
C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision:
H)/J)/l/uS 4.ooPrl::tJ $Y nA-vvIP(t' (t7UkIS~/oj./-
tj-/3-0j/
/(
/J( 4-t Le7)
l.(- /J-~ 0 'f
D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party (For each person listed above
in Box A, check the appropriate box below.)
The person named in Box A.1. above qUalifie.s as a party because: 'I f
f>M nel P /J'ie:1> /# )::U vAIl AI b eo # #/~S / p;tJ / tJJtIlLLI; 1I/1Z/J7 pC;
The person named in Box A.2. above qualifies as a party because:
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each
qualifies as a party.
C:,S
1..11
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified
is (attach additional pages if necessary):
This is an error because the applicable criteria or
procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code 9 or other law in
9
requires that (attach additional pages if necessary):
4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that
exist. For each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland
Municipal Code or other law that were violated.) Cp,-r- A.:#7J~.'I/ ~ .Ih.
~~ /IN'T7--~.!J ()II~'~ Zy
Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal I (we) submit the sum of $ d6~~
which is the appeal fee required by 9 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date: Sign u (s) of person(s)
'(- Z'3 - ::u>o If
filing appeal (attach additional pages if n
~,
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is
(attach additional pages if necessary):
:5~- d-fJ7Ie/ki) ~ )/P/7Cg- t!Yf= 1- 2-s -0;/
This is an error because the applicable criteria or
procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code 9 or other law in
9
requires that (attach additional pages if necessary):
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or
modified is (attach additional pages ~f necessary):
.5e:E- A777I-elft;-b ~ /Jel1Lb OF f-;? 1> -oy
This is an error because the applicable criteria or
procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code 9 or other law in
9
{J
Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appea
I together with the appeal fee must be filed with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20
East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-6002, prior to the effective
date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set fo
rth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.108.070.
6~
1..11
~~@~D\Yl~~
W APR 2 3 2004 ~
RANDALL A. HOPKINS
735 S. Mountain Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
541-488-0265
521-488-2823 (fax)
By
4-23-2004
TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
The letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal in Planning Action 2004-002 (88 North
Main Street). I am qualified as a party to this action, since I participated in the public hearing
before the Planning Commission, both orally and in writing.
The date of the decision being appealed is April 13, 2004, with notice of the
Findings, Conclusions and Orders on this action being mailed on April 15, 2004.
The grounds for this appeal are as follows:
1. Applicant has failed to comply with Sections 18.61.200A2, 18.62.040H,
18.61.050, 18.112.090, and 1.08.020 of the Municipal Code, and has violated same.
2. Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable Criteria for Issuance of a Tree
Removal permit under 18.61.080 of the Code and filed an incomplete application and
evidence.
3. The proposed development fails to fulfill the City's Large Scale
Development site standards.
4. Removal of the tree sought to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the
City's site design standards. .
5. Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings below in violation of
Sec. 18.108.100 of the Code.
The applicable appeal fee is attached.
POSSible~Sk that this appeal be placed on the City ~O meeting :r ;:004. if
C\d:~
II.." RANDALL A. HOPKINS, neE.
., MARY H. HOPKINS, TTEE. i 1487
Ii RANDALL & MARY HOPKINS FAM TR ~ h
735 S. MOUNTAIN AVE. . '--1/
.' ASHLAND, OR 9752 -3243 z.--- > ~ /" 25-80/440
Ct N-LJ7.VjJ f. / ( """';j'-
c5'cKl~/-<(;~~Uars' ~ ~
Bonk On. NA COJum..... on;o 43271 · 7J I!J -
i~~~~;q~~~aa~, ~~~~~as:: .
o 11003
69
III
III
CITY OF
ASHLAND
16
April)K2oo4
Lloyd M. Haines
51 Water Street
AsWand, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #2004-002
Dear Lloyd M. Haines:
At its meeting of March 9, 2004, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for Site Review, a
Tree Removal Permit and Physical Constraints Review Pennit for the property located at 88 North Main Street --
Assessor's Map # 39 IE 09 BB, Tax Lot 9800.
The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the Apri113, 2004 meeting, is enclosed.
Please note the follow'
1. A fmalmap prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of
preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
2. A fmal plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval
becomes invalid.
.0)
CY
There is a 15-day appeal period which must elapse before a building permit may be issued.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit
may be issued.
~ Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new a~plication
· (/ would have to be submitted. .
Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
70
r.,
II!
, .
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 9, 2004
IN THE MATIER OF PLANNING ACTION #2004-002, REQUEST FOR SITE ) FINDINGS,
REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT RO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FLOOR, ) CONCLUSIONS
8,325 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE BUILDING AT 88 NORTH MAIN STREET. A ) AND ORDERS
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO PERMIT )
"DEVELOPMENT" WITHIN ASHLAND CREEK FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR. )
)
APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines )
-------------------------------..------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
I) Tax lot 9800 of391E 09 BB is located at 88 North Main Street and is zoned C-I-D; Retail Commercial
District - Downtown Overlay.
2) The applicant is requesting Site Review, Tree Removal and Physical Constraints Review Permit to
construct a multi-floor, 8,325 square foot mixed-use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical
Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" upon Ashland Flood Plain Corridor
Lands.
3) The application is subject to the following approval standards described within the Ashland Lnad Use
I. The approval criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040 I. as follows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapler-,Jbe potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, arid adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant-has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the
potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be
considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of
the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998)
(Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J -deleted-; Ord 2808, Added, 1210211997)
Further, the project is required to comply with following development standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands:
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.
1
11
:11
1..1,
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the
maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting
or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be
obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060 must be
designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been
identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall
consider in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow.
Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in
section (A) above. Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation is subject to the requirements of 18.62.075.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the
maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height
is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood proofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on
Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated 50 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 Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in
section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot
above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be
certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the case where
development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the
shallowest flooding.
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential ~tructures outside the Corridor land,
unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than
50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the
flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction
shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations
on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a
distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal
impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must contain a
building envelope on alllot{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 f100d-
proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10. .
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor lands.
K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric
fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences
shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within
any designated floodway.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in
2
1:1-
section 18.62.070.C and 0, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10.
M.local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside of the
Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as oufiined below:
1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the adopted
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor
between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as
indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the
corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this
exception.
(Ord 2808, Added, 1?J02/1997)
Further, the project is required to comply with following development standards for Riparian Preservation Lands:
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 angles 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.
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
II. The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in the Ashland land Use Ordinance as follows:
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of
the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance
requirements and standards. (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 will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200
feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density
be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to
comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such
mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
3
/1s
r
1.1.
III. The approval criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.060 as follow:
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.
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)
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on March 9, 2004, at
which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the request for Site Review approval, a Tree Removal
and Physical Constraints Reyiew Permit to construct a multi-floor; 8,325 square foot mixed-use
building at 88 North Main Street meets all relevant approval criteria as described in the Site
Design and Use Standards chapter 18.72, Tree Preservation and Protection chapter 18.61 and
Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter 18.62.
2.3 The Commission finds that the proposed site plan and building design are consistent with
4
1f
applicable City of Ashland design standards. The Commission believes the project team has
designed a building that complies with relevant City design standards. The buildings two-story
scale with flat roof and parapet along North Main Street is appropriate for this City block, and
representative of the staggered streets cape pattern seen throughout the downtown. Consistent
with Downtown Standards, the building maintains a zero setback from the sidewalk and creates a
strong sense of entry through the incorporation of a well-articulated recessed entry with
associated pedestrian covering above. The building width flows from side property line to side
property line, while the location of ground level and upper floor windows maintains a consistent
proportion of transparency. As described within the downtown's design standards, the building
incorporates prominent horizontal and vertical lines and building materials consistent with other
downtown buildings. The proposed building consists of traditional downtown architecture with
an exterior fi19ade consisting of red brick and painted smooth and dappled stucco. Further, the
main entrance faces North Main Street and is articulated with pronounced architectural features
that denote the building entrance. A marquee entrance covering is proposed above the front
entrance, between the adjoining pilasters. The building provides for an alternation of wall areas
with windows, doors and interesting architectural features that have been incorporated into the
overall design of each wall favade.
2.4 The Commission finds that the request for a Tree Removal Permit for the large Alder tree at
the front of the property meets the applicable approval criteria. The Commission concurs with the
applicant's findings based upon information in the application and the written testimony
provided by experts in the appropriate fields. Alders appear to be intolerant to root injury and are
subject to Atmillaria root rot, which is prevalent in this area and is likely to develop when
construction in within 20-feet of the trunk. Alternative design scenarios that involve shifting the
building further away from the street (approximately 30 feet or more from the sidewalk) is
inconsistent with City Downtown Design Standards, and contrary to the existing development
pattern seen along Main Street. Such a shift further limits the developable area of the site due to
flood plain management regulations governing the rear of the property. In addition, there is little
guarantee that, in the long run, the tree will weather the impacts of significant grades changes
associated with building construction.
2.5 The CODlmission finds that the request to permit "development" within Floodplain Corridor and
Riparian Preservation Lands meets all relevant approval and development standards described in the
Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter 18.62. The Commission finds that the application
has evaluated potential impacts and hazards that the development may create and incorporates
appropriate design options to mitigate the potential impacts associated with the proposal. This
includes potential flood related impacts not only to the project, but also upon up and downstream
properties, as well as impacts to the creek environment. The Commission recognizes that while
specific development standards are in place to guide both residential and commercial development,
. standards applicable to commercial development allow for greater flexibility due to the type of use,
location of use and intensity of coverage generally permitted within commercial zoning designations.
The Commission acknowledges that City Floodplain development standards describe a build to
line, delineating how close to the creek a commercial structure can be constructed. This is the
closest location that the building footprint or structural supports can conceivably be constructed,
, 5
15
'II
1.1.
based upon the elevation of the existing property. Additionally, the development standards set a
maximum distance for upper floor projections or cantilevers, while defining th~ elevation of the
lowest finished floor level. The Commission finds that the project complies with the standards.
Specifically, the structural pillars beneath the building footprint do not go beyond (closer to the
creek) the existing ground elevation of 1870. Given that the 100-year base flood elevation
defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is 1872, the building complies
with the provision that new structures be located on lands no more than two-feet below the 100-
year flood elevation. With the elimination of the cantilevered portions of the second and third
floor levels, no portion of the structure encroaches further than 20-feet beyond the 100-year base
flood line (Le. 18.72 elevation). Consequently, the Commission believes that the design revisions
(Le. removal of 2nd & 3rd floor cantilever) not only demonstrate compliance with City Flood Plain
development standards, but also address potential impacts to the three Maple trees currently
situated adjacent to the creek channel and within the riparian environment.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning COInmission concludes that the
request for Site Review, Tree Removal and a Physical Constraints Review Permit to construct a multi-floor,
8,325 square foot mixed-use building at 88 North Main Street meet all applicable approval standards
described in the Site Design and Use. Standards Chapter 18.72, Tree Preservation and Protection chapter
18.61 and Physical Constraint chapter 18.62.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2004-002. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are
found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2004-002 is denied. The following are
the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That the installation of plant materials within Riparian Preservation Lands (both sides of the creek) shall be
reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor in consultation with the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Department
and Ashland Tree Commission. Recommendations on plant materials shall be incorporated into a revised
landscaping plan. All planting shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
3) That both sides of the bank be stabilized through appropriate armoring, such as the placement of medium to
large boulders. The location of the creek armor shall be noted on the revised landscaping plan and approved
by the Staff Advisor prior to commencement of building permit review, pursuant to the approval of
appropriate government agencies with jurisdiction (i.e. State & Federal).
4) That a metal street tree grate, consistent with the standards of the Public Works Department, be installed
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy around the existing street tree along North Main Street.
6
16
5) That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior components of the project
be included at the time of submission ofbuilding permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors,
texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land
use application.
6) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission be incorporated into the final design and approved by
the Staff Advisor. Building sections identifying the height, width, depth, material and texture of all exterior
architectural features shall be provided with the building permit to verify consistency with the approved
building elevations.
7) That the applicant submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This
plan must be revie~{ed and approved by the Electric Department prior to final planning approval and/or
building permit issuance. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
8) That the building setback from the creek channel shall be staked on-site, verified and approved by the Staff
Advisor prior to building permit issuance, and maintained throughout the duration of the project.
9) . That temporary erosion control measures shall be identified on the construction drawings, approved by the
Staff Advisor, and installed on-site prior to building permit issuance. Temporary erosion control measures
shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project and until the final landscaping has been installed.
10) That the design of all storm water run-off outfall locations be reviewed by the Public Works Department and
approved by the Staff Advisor. Outfall locations shall situated as close to the elevation of the creek channel
as possible to reduce the potential for bank erosion. Outfall locations shall be adequately annored and
vegetated to reduce the potential of bank erosion.
11) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and
Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of
connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines
and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage and catch basins. Given the elevation of
lower floor levels, sanitary sewer service may require pumping to the sewer main located in North Main
Street. In addition, connection to City water may require the cutting of North Main Street due to the lines
anticipated location on the opposite side of the street.
12) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to hydrant placement and
flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings and reviewed and
approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
13) That all portions of the building located at an elevation of 1773 or below shall be flood-proofed and designed
to the standards identified in 15.10.080 and as suggested by FEMA for non-residential construction. The
flood-proofing measures shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings, reviewed and approved by
the Building Official, and certified by an Oregon registered professional engineer that the design and
methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of
7
11
r
1.1.
. .
15.10.080 and FEMA.
14) That a covenant or similar deed restriction be recorded on the property prohibiting the establishment or
installation of any structure or similar element on the opposite side of the creek (east side) that would in any
way restrict the overflow of flood waters into the area beneath the viaduct. The legal instrument shall be
prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor and City Attorney prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
15) That a sign, awning and marquee program for the development be included at the time of building permit
review. The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs, locations and approximate square
footage based upon the requirements described in the Sign Code 18.96. Leases for commercial tenant spaces
shall note that awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be consistent with City Downtown
Design Standard (VI-I), reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by the Planning
Department Staff Advisor.
16) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted on their January 9, 2004 document be
addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised
landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit.
17) That proposed Tree Protection measures address existing trees located immediately north of the property
within the State right-of-way. The approval of off-site mitigation on the State right-of-way shall be the
responsibility of the applicant. The applicant shall seek ODOT's consent of the: planting of a large
specimen tree (one to two trees, depending on the species and what canopy it \vill reach), two and one-
half inches in caliper to mitigate the loss of canopy from the removal of the alder tree. The landscape
architect can make the decision as to what type oftree(s). At maturity the tree should be considered a
signature tree.
18) That an opportunity-to-recycle site for use by project residents shall be identified for the project in
accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to
issuance of a building permit.
19) That the construction drawings submitted at the time Building Permit review shall demonstrate compliance
with 18.62.070 (G).
20) That wood clad windows be installed on the front windows with a four-inch mullion (separation). Such
reVl:~~learlY ide tified on the building permit plans.
~~
9-/3~-OY
Date
8
71
MAR-12-2004 FRI 12:58 PM ODOT WHITE CITY
FAX NO. 5417746349
P. 01
0~ OEP~t();
~G . ~~
; iF;
~ ~'"
~rvSPO~"\~
OIffiC~N DEPl' OF TRANSPOR1'ATION
ROGUE VAl..LEY AREA OFFICE R"3 D-8
200 ANTELOPE :ROAD
Wllrl'E err'v, OR 97503
!)}lOllC: (541) 774..8184 Fax: (541) 774..6349
FAX l"RANSMIITAL
To: __~ A'-j of Ash.(...",J
Fax #: __~~_ "/98 - ~CJOb
From:'..I~-t ~ li.o !'i".5 0 ..--.
])ate:
Subject: _ Lo.~J.se~~ Pej,...:+ f~(' J{...w -h~e-
Pages: {'i} illCludhlg thi.s eover s11eet
N01"\ES: H~~~ 1 ~ ?'t r~\ + ..f-~ .'?J~Cf. cj. - ;41a.: VL-f~~ k-
New +'t'-(''l.. S~dW~ ~~ j)i~~~a.__
A f1~ 0 c. eN (J ylrtc:l- ')
S i ') \^.. q. R ~.A, u....-- to 6 Do T i.[:
,
f{yW\\+
pr~ v.'J.-ed. hy ~Q.J{ b t'-c+'-- ct-
Yd u a~ Y~c. uJ ,'fl Th; s
71
ILw~)
r/-e 'h--
MAR 1 2 2004
'II
MAR-12-2004 FRI 12:58 PM ODOT WHITE CITY
FAX NO. 5417746349
L I,
P. 02
...'ff^......U"~
....... "" Il'''''-~
. PERMll NUMBER
APPUCA TION AND PERMIT TO OCCUP II ..JR ~
PERFORM OPERATIONS UPON A STATE HIGHWAY
s... O,ogon Administrative Rule, Chap!o' 734, Division 65 c~~.~. J K1,V#
--. . .." .-:-~~,.:,.. ~- PURPOSE O'F ,'A"PPLICA TION
___. ..._ ........__... fIQ_C.9NS'l' Rver !OPERA TE/MAINT ^'Nl__
O POLE TYPE ~IN. VERT. Cl.EAflANCE
LINE --1....
i-V f3UAIEO l'yp~
UCABLE
-:J
GENERAL LOCATION
--..iTdf.IWAY NAME ANO riOUT~ NUMBE"Fi-........uv....
Rogue Vall ey ,.I::!l'!Y '~~-'J-
HIC1HWA v NUMOEfl COUNTY
63 15 = JACKSON
al~l'Wrrt;j"(m'N1tAR LAND M^RKS
Lithia Way ans Main st.
wrMiY~"REFERENCE MAP
L. ;"... ..w_
488...5347
D~ PIPE
LINE:
o ~~~..cOMMER~;;::.TFEE-AMOiJN-T
MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONS AND/OR
IZJ FACILITIES AS DESCRIBED BELOW
BOND RCQUIIlED nff~f1ENC!;: AMOUNT OF BOND
o YES ~ NO OAf'{ 734.55
- ..::: ~~~. .9;J~{'1_'M."'~ ...-..____ ......
INSURANCE REQUIRED "r.tIlR~Nce: SPL:Clrll'10 COM!>. DATE
1ZI YES D NO ~:5~,~34'55 3-30-2006
TYP~
IDESIGNAT"fDFREEWAY IIN U.S. FORE:ST
DYES IZI NO 0 YES ~ NO
APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS
CUy Of Ashland
20 E. Main 5t.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
DETAIL LOCATION OF FACILlTY{For more space attach additional sheets)
_'1'61.'.........___..--- -
MIl.E MilE ENGINEl:RS ENGINEERS SIDE OF HWY on DISTANCE FROM __..-!!..URI ;P_~A~~.tPBg_IJ~~w_. " SPAN
POINT TO POINT STATION TO STATION ANGLE OFCfl.OSSING !CfNTI;R OF PVMl RNJ LINE DEPTHNERT. SIZE AND KIND L~NGl'H
I~"~'"'' ..II_.......""_'W"~, '''_OJ
140+55
LANl SCAPE PERMI TO REPLACE TREE ON OOOT ~ fW
I
Ot:SC~IP"tON AND LOCATION OF NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNS OR MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONS FACIUTIES Permit is to plant tree as
replacement to Alder that is to be removed due to construction. Chinese Pistachio will be the replacement tree.
.....---..I.~.-..- ~---- - __........,_ - _r-...... ._,.
SPE:CIAL PROVISIONS (FOR MORE SPACE ATTACH ^DbITIONAL SHEETS)
TAAFrlC CONTrWL m:OUlnEP - OPEN CUTTING OF PAVeD OR SURFACED ARE^S AlLOWED7
+ L~ YES IO^A 734-55-0:26((1)\ [J NO . 0 YES [OAR 734-55-100[2] IZl NO (OAR 13~-55-'OO(1t
. AT LEAST 4S HOURS bEFORE BEGINNING WORK, THE APPLICANT OR HIS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIf=Y THE DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE AT TELrPHONE NUMBER. 774~G342
OR fAX A COpy OF THIS PAGE TO THE DISTRICT OFFICE AT; 774-6349 SPECIFY TIME AND DATE IN
THE SPACE BELOW.
. A COpy OF THIS PERMIT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT THE WORK AREA DUnlNG CONSTRUCTION.
. ORS 75'1.54 TO 157.671 REQUU1~S EXCAVATORS TO LOCATE AND PROT~CT AU. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. YOU MAY BE
HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGl::S. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATES. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. 1.BOO~332~2344
COMMENTS - ODOT USE ON\... Y lraffic control must meet MUTeD standards
See atlached landscape provisIons
A temporary chain link rence will be 3110wed around new trees within the right of way
IF THF- pnoPOSED APPLICATION WILL AFFECT THE LOCAL GOVERNM.aiT~'THE'ArPLicANt-SHALL ACQUIRE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE ar:FORE ACOU1R'NG THE DISTRICT MANAGER'S SIGNATURE.
r_............. ....'rltl4A_'""""-l_..~._
LOCAl GOVCnNMC:NT OFFICIAL SIGNA1'UAr: TITLE DATE
X
A;~ICANr SIGNATURE I APPUCIl.TION DATE
Wll0l11111s nppllCilll/)O III OJlt>rov41d bv lho Dopllflmaru, Iho BPpllCIlOt IS 8ublSCllO, ac~e"l& 8M
Ior)l)(OvtlR ll1e 1(1(llIII C1nd prOvl6.iOr)$ tOIHuir\utl &,'L1 .\LLul.;hud: 8nl.l tlll~ lurr~lI:l or Drago/l ^dll1irlitilrallVIl
~Ilhl!lr Chulllur 7:JI'j, Divj!m,ln 65. which 1;1 by thl:; rnforl,lrlea lTI/lcJa II Plll'1 ar lhl:i p"rmlt.
TITL,E
illfpHONE~
DISTRICT MANAGER OR.RE'PR-ESENTAiivE-~wM'-'w. 'APP'ROVALDATI-
73~ -341) 7 (5-03)
x
~O
MAR 1 2 2004
MAR-12-2004 FRI 12:59 PM ODOT WHITE CITY
FAX NO. 5417746349
P. 03-
AI)DITIONAL SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MISCELLANROUS PERMITS.
LANDSCAPING (Mar 2000).
1. A copy of this pcrmjt and all attachments shall be available at the work area during construction.
2. ORS 757.5410 757.57J requires excavators LO locate and protect all existing underground \1tiHties.
You may be held Jiabl~ for damages. CalJ for utilities locate. Call before you dig J-800-332..
2344.
3. Contractor Lo acknowledgo receipt ofaud review of, by letter, the Orcgon Administrative Rules
(Chaptelr 734.55) governing miscellaneous faciIitie5 and ()p~rations on the highway right of way a.s
rllc governing provisions of this pennit or agreement.
4. The Penllittce shall not use the right of way to display advertising signs or merchandise of any
kind.
5. The Slopping and pnrking of vehicles upon State Highway tight of way for the maintenance of
adjoining property or in furlllel'ance of any business transaction or commercial establishment is
slrictly prohibited.
6. The sprE~ading of mud or debris upon any State Highway is strictly prohibiled~ and violation shall
be CtlllSC for immediate cancclJation of the permit. Clean up shall he at Applicant's expense. The
highway shull be cleaned of all dirt and debds at the end of each workday, or morC frequently if so
determined by the DisLdct Ma.nager or representative.
1. All equipment shall be parked off the right of way or in areas acceptable to the District Manager or
rcpresentati ve.
8. Perm il! cc shall replace any landscape vegetation or fences that are damaged or destroyed. Any
damage that is not fully recovered within one yetir shaH b~ replaced by onOT at the ~xpcnso of
the Permittee,
9. PC1111itte sh"ll be ftlsponsible for continued maintenance oClhe landscape facility. Failure to
maintain lnndscape will prompt ODOT to remove or repair facility at thc expense: Oflhc Pc.mniLcc.
10. AppHeant shall obtain an application and pl!rmU ror trimming or spraying trees prior to the
cutting of trees nnd bnlsh on the highway right of way (application!=! are available at the ni[o)lrict
office). Applicant will be held liable. for tr~o hranches Or shrubbery intcrrering with lh~ traveling
puhlic.
11. Applicant will install and maintaiJllandscaped areas as shown on the attached drawings. Planting
shall be limited to low growing shrubs (less than 24"), grass or flowers tlHlt do not nttain sufficient
height to obslruct clear vision in any direction. The Commission or Engineer shan have the right
to remove said lnndscaping at any time slIch removlll may appear to the Commission to be in the
public's interest, without liability of loss, injury or damage of allY nature whatsoever,
12. Applicant is responsible for:
[I] Investigating presence I absence of any legally protected or regulated environmental
rc~ourcc(s) in the action area e.g. ITa7~1rdous material(s), water qUtiJity constraints, wetlands,
~rchcologic31 Or historic resource(s)~ state or federal threatened or endangered species, etc.
f2] Complying with all appHcable ellvironmenlal Jaws pertaining to the proposed acllc)n. If
appHcant inadvertently impacts a legally protected! regulated resource, applicant will be
responsible ror mitigation / rehabilitation cost.
1:3. All existing k1cHities such as utilities~ cUrbs~ culverls~ signs~ mail b(lXCS, sigll [lost, guardrail,
landscape vegetation and fcnces~and all rnisccllancl.)us hems within the right ofw(~y arc to be
protected! and maintained, Or removed and aucquately replaced. Any damage that is not fully
recovered shall be rcphlCcd by ODOT at the cxpcn~c of the Permitlee.
8'1
MAR 1 2 2004
.11
MAR-12-2004 FRI 12:59 PM ODOTWHITE CITY
FAX NO. 541774834B
L I.
P. 04
05~C.TION - ~E F';wTI:c.1"V~ FeNGl~
~il1I.,Ir.iI".. 1'.0" .
-"
" .., to ...-.......
..~ .. . .,,_, .. "'-t.",....~
_~._.,.."1 _....... _ \ .ft~_.._,.._..,_..-..........
\ .~ .",._. 0-1 "',_._ . .-4\ ,- .." "1__, .. '"_ "'. ,_
-,.... ."'/.-'-
-- '-- ~-.. -~,- ..
N~vJ .
1 ,,~ .e.. .. _00 .
l-()c.~A.\ ~v--
".0_,
-_1_-.-
-..... - 1-. '''010 __.
. - ""_.~,... '_....
.. "--..-.r.
\',,-
'IIAI"
"'-,
\~
/, .
~ '..
" . .
))(J~ ~~t
~~ I'QlMAlII4
~
\ ". ' /
00 jot..
.<. .\1..__.
~~
CI!/~ f'l5'~Hef
f~
MAR 1 2 70n4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MARCH 9, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioners Present:
Absent Members:
Council Liaison:
High School Liaison:
SOU Liaison:
Staff Present:
Russ Chapman, Chair
Mike Morris
Kerry KenCairn
Marilyn Briggs
Colin Swales
John Fields
Ray Kistler
Dave Dotterrer
Cameron Hanson
Ale:x Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest)
None
None
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
Su<:~ Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chapman announced there would not be a study session on March 23rd.
The monthly Planning Commission "Chat" will be held on Tuesday, March 23rdat the Community Development and
Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way from 3 :30 to 4 :30 p.m. Swales and Dotterrer will be available to answer
questions from the public.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
February 10. 2004 Reaular Meetina Minutes: Chapman asked for a clarification on page 2. Under Staff Report, second sentence,
change it to read" "The existing house will be on its own lot and a fifth lot common area, covering all the open space. Briggs
moved the minutes be approved as corrected, KenCairn seconded the motion and the minutes were approved as corrected.
February 24.2004 Study Session.: Swales noted on the bottom of page 1, last sentence, remove "side setback".
February 10,2004 Hearinas Board Findings for PA2003-118. 265 Glenview Drive. DeBoer: Morris moved to approve the findings.
(Note: From the audience, Bill Street asked to speak to the findings and was told by Chapman this is not a public hearing.)
Dotterrer seconded the motion and the [mdings were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2004-002
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FLOOR, 8325 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE
BUILDING AT 88 NORTH'MAIN STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUTED TO PERMIT uDEVELOPMENT
WITH THE ASHLAND FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR.
APPLICANT: LLOYD HAINES
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - The commissioners all had a site visit. KenCairn has had a little exposure to the Tree
Commission, but all the infonnation conveyed to her is contained in the packet.
, 1"1
g3
L I.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar said the site is located at the entrance to the downtown. The proposed area of construction currently houses the
uncovered wooden deck of the AsWand Creek Bar and Grill. The site slopes significantly from the sidewalk along North Main
to AsWand Creek. AsWand Creek and the associated floodplain are located to the rear of the property.
The application has three elements. The Physical Constraints Review Permit applies ordinances and regulations to the portion
of the project that encroaches into the floodplain area. There is a Tree Removal Permit. In a Commercial zone, under a Site
Review process, trees greater than six inches in diameter are required to be identified and those tha1l are proposed to be
removed require a Tree Removal Permit. There are approximately four trees in the area that are potentially impacted by the
project. Three are proposed to be retained and the largest of the four, a 36 diameter alder tree close to the sidewalk on North
Main, is proposed for removal. The third aspect is Site Review. This is design review, looking at c:onsistency with the City's
Downtown Design Standards as well as height requirements and other aspects of site design.
Molnar explained the City has a lot of standards regarding development in floodplain corridor lands. Chapter 15 of the
AsWand Municipal Code sets a number of other standards that generally pertain to elevating and flood proofmg structures. He
continued stating our regulations are set up to look at the impact of potential floods on the proposed building as well as the
impact associated with constructing the structure near the floodplain and how it might impact downstream and upstream
property. Another piece is the riparian preservation land. This an overlay that looks at minimizing or addressing the impacts
associated with the creek's riparian environment. Our floodplain regulations allow commercial buildings a little bit more
latitude than if zoned residential. Flood regulations allow the buildings not only to get close to the 100 year floodplain, but
may allow the buildings to encroach into the floodplain corridor but not into an area of the floodplain corridor that is more than
two feet below the 100 year floodplain. It allows a minor encroachment into the floodplain as long as the building is flood
proofed and the building is adequately engineered. The 100 year flood elevation for this property is approximately 1872 feet,
as established by FEMA. The City's ordinance would allow certain structural parts to encroach into the floodplain at 1870
feet. The ordinance also allows for upper floors to be cantilevered out over floodplain corridor landls but sets a maximum
projection of 20 feet and any part of the 20 feet has to be ten feet above the flood elevation.
This proposed building will be built on pillars, allowing the floodwaters to go beneath the basement: area. The structural
elements are at 1870 feet. The initial design showed a second and third floor cantilevered, projecting beyond the 20 foot
maximum, making it in conflict with the standard. In addition to the large alder tree, there are three maple trees (upon closer
examination, it is one tree with three large trunks) by the creek area, 20 to 25 feet in height, right below the second and third
floor projections. The projections are 17 feet above the base of the trees. The trees would have to be drastically cut to fit
underneath the second and third floor. The applicant has modified the design by pulling back the se:cond and third floor as
shown in the drawings dated March 5,2004. It now meets the floodplain standard, allowing for ret(mtion of the maple trees.
The lowest floor of the building is proposed to be a restaurant with an outdoor deck at creekside. The second floor level is at
sidewalk level and proposed for retail and office. The third floor .is proposed to house two large apartments.
Fields asked if there was a property line adjustment being made. It looks as though it is one tax. lot.
Swales thought this appeared to be a development in excess of 10,000 square feet and should be sub~ect to the large-scale
building requirements. He could see nothing in the findings addressing that or public space that would be required for such a
building.
Briggs asked if Staff is satisfied with the pullback on the revised plans. Molnar said they are satisfi(~d with the changes at this
point and feel the applicant complies with the riparian preservation and floodplain regulations. The current wooden deck goes
approximately right to the water's edge. It is probably non-conforming with our current ordinance. Staff directed the applicant
early on to bring back some of that degraded riparian area adjacent to the creek. They have pulled the deck back so there is at
least ten feet between the water's edge and the deck. The applicant will try to bring the area back to a more natural state with
riparian planting. The applicant is proposing a planting plan for the other side of the creek as well. There is a Condition that
the applicant coordinate the plan with the Tree Commission and the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODF&W), given
the disturbance in the area. ODF&W has expressed an interest if the applicant is considering additional placement of boulders
or other armoring to stabilize that area? if appropriate.
KenCairn asked if there has been any assessment of the current bridge over the creek in relationship to flooding. Molnar said
part of this project is a redesign of the pedestrian bridge, allowing it to be hoisted above a 100 year flood event.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9, 2004
MINUTES
2
?~
Molnar said the applicant has proposed removing the 36 inch alder tree. The tree removal criteria have been addressed in the
application as well as the Staff Report. (1) Without removing the tree, the design of the project would be inconsistent with the
City's design standards. The: applicant has noted the downtown development pattern has most of the buildings up along the
sidewalks with a zero front and side setbacks. If the pattern is kept consistent and the applicant complies with the downtown
standards, the tree could not be retained. The further the building is set back, the closer it gets to the floodplain issue. The area
of development of the property starts shrinking. There is an arborist's report and the landscape architect noted the alder trees
are not very tolerant to construction on their root zones. (2) The applicants also have to show the removal win not have a
negative impact on erosion or windbreaks. Staff does not feel it will have a negative impact because the tree will be replaced
by a building and the precipit.ation would be taken to a storm system. (3) The removal of trees will not have a negative impact
on tree density, sizes and canopies. While it is a notable tree at this location, alder trees are not unique in a riparian
environment. There are approximately 30 to 35 trees adjacent to the property within the state right-of-way and existing
floodplain area. Staff feels adequate findings were presented in the record along with expert testimony from the arborist and
landscape architect to meet the criteria for approval of tree removal.
The Historic Commission reviewed the application. They are happy with the design and feel it meets the downtown design
standards. They are pleased with the removal of the second and third floor projections and recommended approval.
The packet contains the recommendations made by the Tree Commission at their January meeting.
Staff supports the application and has suggested 21 Conditions if the Commission wishes to approve the application.
Molnar showed some of the flood zones in the area. Staff wants to minimize flood potential to the proposed building. There is
a small triangular piece of property under the applicant's ownership. Staff has stipulated that as part of the floodplain
modeling, there be some kind of deed restriction precluding any kind of permanent encroachment from being placed there,
such as a building or shed that could impede the natural overflow.
Swales thought there was some mention about the culvert downstream being changed or taken out. Molnar said the OT AK
study indicates the culvert crossing is probably undersized and at an awkward angle given the flow and velocity. Long teon,
he thought OTAK's recommendation is the bridges need to be evaluated. Molnar said the last he heard, the 1974 event was a
30-35 year event and similarly, the 1997 event was-not a 100 year event, but a much lesser event.
PUBLIC HEARING
CRAIG STONE, Craig Stone and Associates, 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR 97504, is representing 88 North Main, LLC
(Lloyd Haines, applicant). Dave Richardson is the architect and John Galbraith the landscape architect. They also worked on
the project with civil engineers, OT AK and with a certified arborist, Tom Meyer.
Stone said this project is mixed-use to be enclosed in a single building. This building does not touch the adjacent buildings and
is separated by at least six inches. It was on separate tax lots. The Jackson County Assessor consolidated the tax lots and
currently it is on a single pared. It can be re-divided.
Landscaping is proposed even though it is not required in the downtown. The deck will be moved back to make it more
functional and integral to this building and to enhance the riparian landscaping within the riparian corridor. The existing
pedestrian bridge is noted as a stipulation in the application. The intent is to replace the bridge with a bridge that can be raised
or lowered during flood events. It is important to have this type of pedestrian connectivity.
Stone said the approval standards and development standards have been addressed. They have tried to address the impacts or
potential for impacts. (1) The building has been set back so it won't impede the flow of waters. It has been designed to
increase the volume of water that can be stored on this property during a flood event. The retaining wall has been designed to
channel the normal stream flows downstream underneath the culvert. (2) They do not propose to remove any riparian
vegetation. They want to remove the existing deck and construct a new deck away from the creek corridor. They've made
great efforts to preserve the maple trees. Since it is one tree and not three, the tree can be pruned to accommodate the building
design. Stone noted Galbraith's revised preservation plan, Galbraith's letter and Tom Meyer's letter. (3) Stone said removal
of the alder tree is unavoidabk. The tree has to be removed to comply with other standards in AMC. There is no way to
accomplish building up to the sidewalk, if the tree is retained. If the tree was set back 20 feet, it would put the tree injeopardy,
having development close to the tree. The applicant wishes to create an art park beneath the viaduct. It would involve
sculpturing the tree that is proposed to be removed. The sculpture would occupy this property or the adjacent art park.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9,2004
MINUTES
3
<6S
, 1\
.1
L I .
Stone said with regard to Condition 3, the applicant would be glad to armor the creekand to work with the city and state. He
would like wording such as: "Pursuant to the approval of state and federal agencies having jurisdic:tion over such
matters.. . (add wording in Condition 3).
Condition 18 cites a Tree Commission recommendation from January 9th. He believes there is a more recent Condition. Stone
would like clarification on Condition 14.
LLOYD HAINES said the frrst floor is at 1877 feet, five feet above FEMA and a foot and half above Ashland's floodplain.
Molnar said Condition 14 could be deleted because what the applicant is proposing shows they have well exceeded the flood
elevation. He said they have also noted pruning guidelines.
Haines commented that though not part of the application, he would like to complete his vision for this area by making
improvements to the creek on both sides and make it pedestrian accessible from the park all the way down Water Street.
Swales said he is not referring to the big box ordinance. He is talking about IIC3 - Additional Standards for Large Scale
Projects. The one building is 8000 square feet and the aggregate of the two buildings would put it in this category. You can't
split the lot and have the same development that is proposed because of frre restrictions. He believc~s we need to address the
issue of these large-scale projects.
Briggs asked if they are rebuilding the existing staircase.
DAVE RICHARDSON, Architectural Design Works, 1105 Siskiyou Boulevard, said the stairs go from the second floor to the
upper floor of the new building. It has no connection to the existing building.
Fields asked if this is one building or isn't it? Richardson said it is one building and it is less than 8000 square feet. The part
of the building closest to the existing building will contain firewalls.
Fields mentioned that Criterion 23(2)(A) Landscaping Requirements, C-I-D requires ten percent landscaping. Is that an error?
Swales said this was a conflict in the ordinance (reviewed on 2-24-04 Study Session). He said the Site Design Standards
conflict with the AMC. It says ten in one place and in the other it says zero. Molnar said that needs to be corrected. Fields
referred to page 30 of the applicant's findings. Molnar said that must have been taken from the Site Design and Use Standards.
He added that in C-I-D there are no landscaping requirements.
Swales said most of the concerns from the public seem to be surrounding removal of the tree. The applicant's findings deal
with this issue on page 51 (top bullet point). When you look at the ordinance as it is written, it goes on to say, "An exception
to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining spacc~ or rear access." In other
words, there are allowable ways to have the building not extend from side lot line to side lot line. The second part of the
setback requirement states: "Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from these
standards." It seems the tree removal permit would fit the "similar restricting conditions" and therefore the building would be
exempt from the standard of that setback. When you look at the rules for exceptions available, is there demonstrable difficulty
in meeting the specific requirements? It is a very difficult site to.build on. The standards go on to say that you can have an
"alternative design that encompasses the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards in a manner that is equal or superior to".
It would seem there are other options available to the applicant under our Design Standards. He belileves the Commission
would look favorably on the application if there had been some attempt on this site to actually retain the tree. He believes there
are omissions in the findings that speak to alternative proposals that could be on this site.
Chapman understood there has to be a 20 foot buffer around the tree during construction. Though Swales does not claim to be
a tree expert, it seems it is possible to build a building on this site if you are required to save a tree. It is also in the Site Design
Standards to retain as many healthy trees as possible. This tree is of huge stature.
KenCairn said one of the criteria is that you don't have to follow the Design Guidelines if you are creating plaza space, etc. If
you were to do that around this tree, you couldn't pave it. You'd have to leave it in its natural state.
Stone argued that taken as a whole, the Downtown Design Standards were established for the purpose of replicating a
traditional downtown fa9ade treatment and compatibility with the those buildings that historically existed. You can make the
argument that Swales makes and make some efforts to establish a building with a small feature on the back of the property,
sandwiched between the tree setback area and the creek and call it a plaza.. He does not believe these standards require you to
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9,2004 (') I
MINUTES {5 ~
do that. Stone is not going to say Swales is wrong, but the result of it is a building that doesn't meet what the design guidelines
have sought to achieve.
Haines explained this property is three tax lots. The assessor joined the property into one parcel.
Molnar is not sure, but based on revisions to the Big Box ordinance, outside the downtown, buildings sharing a common wall
shall be considered one building. That was not a provision placed with the downtown area.
JAMES KOLKER, 1030 Morton Street, said he is a business owner in the area adjacent to the creek. If the building moved back
20 feet, it would end up with a 30 foot gangplank going to a tiny building. He is most concerned about the area containing a
dumpster, bike racks, and a large deck with a concrete parking lot. There is a huge electric box there too. The area is a heavily
traveled pedestrian area that meanders up from Water Street. Pedestrians are confronted with this bar scene that is very
unattractive and uninviting. This area sorely needs something to connect to the main walkway.
JOAN VAN LEHN, 310 Holly Street, agrees with Kolker. There are two beautifully developed areas. People enjoy sitting by the
creek. The state right-of-way area is a blight. There are boom boxes, loud music, and beer cans. She would just like it to be
cleaned up. It could be an inlcredible asset to the community.
JACK HARDESTY, 575 Dogwood Way, said he supports the Haines project. He believes the plan is in keeping with the rest of
the downtown area. The plan to provide public space and access to Bluebird Park is decidedly in the public interest. It will
improve the entrance to downtown. .
SKIP ANDREW, 216 Scenic Drive, favors the project. He used to live at the north end of town and the only place to walk in a
nice quiet green space was at Glen Vista Estates. Haines built that project. In walking downtown, he would walk in Bluebird
Park. Haines built that as well. His frrst response was to save the tree. It is an alder tree that has only about 30 years left. The
tree will be gone and the building will still be there. He does not agree with Swales' position. He believes the building needs
to be up against the sidewalk He does not believe it is in the City's best interest to build around a tree.
RON ROTH, 6950 Old Highway 99 South, believes this is a good plan and a good project. Downtown AsWand is not a small
town, but a small city. What downtown AsWand needs is more people living in or near the downtown core. This proposed
building will provide more housing where more residents can walk to shops and parks. The large tree needs to be removed.
He does not think removing the tree will have any significant environmental impact. Alder trees are very plentiful and grow
very quickly. They also die at a relatively young age. He would be more in favor of the project if instead of two large
apartments, the plan was for half dozen small apartments. He's watched affordable housing disappear in AsWand.
ORIANA SPRATT, 212 Patterson Street, said she had also submitted a written opinion. She is not in favor of killing this plan,
but she doesn't think enough work has been done to save the tree. She agrees with Swales. This is the most beautiful part of
the plaza. She spoke with an arborist who said this is one of the prettiest trees in AsWand and he is upset it has to be removed.
Roots would be damaged by being too close to construction. .
DIANE MCDERMOTT, 208 Patterson Street, sent a couple ofletters. She said if we didn't have to line up all the buildings, we
could save the tree. She is hearing that we don't have adequate information tonight to review this. We don't know if a
building can be placed there and still preserve the tree. The tree is 40 years old. You can't see the maple tree. It would be a
shame to remove the alder tree if we don't have to.
BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, is still frustrated by AsWand's planning process. Nothing in his comments probably
approach the criteria. From a lay perspective it seems funny that the Chamber of Commerce wants more retail. This is a
values debate. On the one side we have the property owner and their rights and on the other side we have all the other values.
He is supportive of some of the ways the applicant is trying to make this area better. We will fmd a way to explain away why a
particular tree has to go. He would urge the Commission to look at the Valdez principles adopted by the Council. He
wondered if it would ever happen that someone couldn't build because of the Valdez principles. Or, maybe they are too
idealistic for our town. He m,entioned the current Council goals. Another goal in the Tree Ordinance is 18.61.094 B(I). "
Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to, requiring modifications in the location, design or intensity of a
development or activities on a site, or to require or to prohibit certain construction methods. Modifications may result in a
decrease in size of residential or commercial structures and modification shall not reduce the density of residential
development below the permitted density allowed by the zone." He would like the Commissioners and the Planning Dept. to
keep this section in mind. He would hope this action could be continued for another month.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9, 2004
MINUTES
5
'17
, II
I'
.1
1..1,
KenCaim asked about the most recent response from the Tree Commission concerning the project. Holley said when you have
a multi-trunked tree and take it back to where you would normally prune, it creates a weak spot in the tree. The Tree
Commission said if the alder has to go, we would like the Planning Commission to work with the Planning Department and the
applicant and ODOT. If the alder acts as a gateway, then we have an opportunity to work with the multiple parties and make
that gateway the best it can be. It will take some political will.
CYNDI DION, 897 Hillview Drive, said she works on the plaza and walks daily in that area. There are some wonderful aspects
of this project she is in favor of but she is opposed to removal of the signature alder. She is extremdy concerned that this
project is set to be very close to the Ashland Creek riparian area. She is on the Ashland Street Watershed Partnership
committee and they are currently working with the City to draw up a riparian ordinance. Some of the ordinances could be
stricter than what is on the books now. If it is absolutely necessary to remove the alder tree, the mitigation should be exactly as
stated by the Tree Commission. The best choice would be to replace it with another tree of equal girth and size, planted
specifically along the creek. She personally doesn't feel that a carving of the dead tree trunk mitigates the removal of the tree.
The plantings along the riparian area must be riparian plants. Perhaps some sort of work can be done so the maple does not
have to be trimmed back as severely as proposed.
KenCaim asked if Dion favored the effort between ODOT and the City to do some mitigation to the: north of the property
boundary. Dion approved of the plan. She believes it is a wonderful idea to work diligently to put more plantings along the
creek.
RANDALL HOPKINS, 735 S. Mountain Avenue, suggested the Tree Commission made their decision they way they did is
because they heard from only one side. There was no notice on the City's website before January 9,2004. It went to the Tree
Commission a second time on March 4,2004. The agenda was posted on the website, however, under public hearings, no
planning actions were proposed for the month. The public would have no clue anything was happening. He attended the
meeting on the March 4th. It was clear that the Tree Commissioners believed that there is a zero setback requirement. As
Swales pointed out, the applicant has been very careful not to include references to the many exceptions and exclusions. He
read from the standards: "other recessed features". He believes it is possible to incorporate a recessled feature that would
comply with the setback requirement and bring the rest of the building to the sidewalk.
Molnar noted that this application was adequately noticed and met the statutes for pubic noticing.
Molnar referred to the question about whether this is one development or part of another development. Staff reviewed this as a
stand-alone development of approximately 8000 square feet and would not be subject to the large-scale development standards.
By taking off the second and third floor cantilevering, the building is about 7700 square feet. The dining deck and reception
area is about 800 square feet and a fmding could be made this space is public space.
Molnar said the other issue is whether or not to grant tree removal of the alder tree. Staff doesn't take lightly the removal of
large trees. We rely on expert testimony from the applicant's team. What is the long-term vision for the downtown based on
the downtown development standards and the downtown plan? It talks about buildings up on the street. Given the factors in
the arborist's report that any disturbance within 20 feet of the tree would be detrimental to the long-term health of the tree, etc.
would it be in the best interest of the Downtown Standards if that tree in 30 to 35 years ultimately declined. This is a unique
site because of the state right-of-way next to it.
KenCaim wondered if we could ask for mitigation or a condition that would require the applicant to exhaust mitigation
opportunities with another public entity. If the alder tree is a gateway tree, the best opportunity for mitigation is on the ODOT
property. It would force negotiations with the applicant and ODOT to do mitigation plantings in that area. To be responsible
to the community, we would try to force that opportunity.
Chapman said Condition 19 addresses the issue. KenCaim would like stronger language. She wants the public to know the
measures that the applicant had to go through to do mitigation in that area. Molnar asked if the Tree: Commission's
recommendation was sufficient. "The applicant shall plant either a minimum one and one-half inch caliper, healthy and well-
branched deciduous tree or five or six foot tall evergreen tree." Molnar said the Commission has th(~ ability to increase
landscaping.
Chapman's wording for Condition 19: To mitigate the loss of the alder, the applicant will exhaust all opportunities with
ODOT to implement the recommendations of the Tree Commission on the property directly to the north. Fields thought, in
order to satisfy the gateway issue around the tree, perhaps plant three trees. KenCairn said there is room for two along that
sweep. She thought there should be a larger canopy than a one and one-half inch caliper tree.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING
=;~:' 2004 ~ '?
Rebuttal
Stone believes the proposed development does not fall under large scale development. If the County Assessor consolidated
three lots into one, Haines is willing to partition the property the way it was originally partitioned, separating the buildings onto
individual tax lots. The singl1e building is about 7500 square feet.
Stone said the tree doesn't have to taken out to comply with the Design Standards. To create a 20 foot notch around the
building would probably not allow it to even hit the sidewalk. It would be pretty disastrous to the design of the project. This
project ought to move forward despite the removal of the tree because ifby making some heroic efforts in the design of the
building to preserve the tree and it dies, we are left with a building that has a comprised design for a feature that is no longer
around. He does not believe ilt is a requirement to put in alcoves and plazas.
He believes ODOT will be cooperative. This is a piece of remnant property within the state right-of-way that looks like it
won't be necessary for any transportation purposes. He believes it will be a simple matter to gain their authorization to plant
one or multiple replacement trees. Haines would be willing to stipulate three trees.
KenCaim asked if they could be two to two and one-half inch caliper. Haines said yes. There are already eight trees going on
the right-of-way. It may be the City would rather have a work of art there. KenCairn suggested they could integrate both.
Stone said possible language for Condition 19 could read: "Applicant shall seek ODOT's consent to permit the planting of not
less than three trees of not less than two to two and one-half inch caliper on the adjacent right-of-way." KenCairn appreciated
their generosity and thought three could be too many. Haines will be glad to mitigate even if it's not at that site, but another
part of the City.
KenCaim wondered if we want to mitigate in that area particularly to honor the canopy/gateway idea. Chapman thinks there is
a loss at that site and we would like to put something there to replace that loss. KenCairn said maybe we should go for canopy
cover rather number of trees. That's why larger is better and maybe one is enough.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Chapman suggested losing the::: alder and replacing it on the piece of property to the north. Dotterrer concurred. The Condition
can use words that talk about our goal rather than number of trees. Briggs would like wording that would signify the desire for
a special or "specimen" replacement tree.
Molnar's wording for Condition 19 as worded with the additional wording - "That the applicant shall seek ODOT's consent of
the planting to mitigate the loss of canopy from the alder to a large specimen tree (one to two trees, depending on the species
and what canopy it will reach) of two and one-half inch caliper. The landscape architect can make the decision as to what
tree(s). At maturity the tree will be considered a signature tree.
Chapman suggested adding a sentence to Condition 3: "The location of the creek armor shall be noted on the revised
landscaping plan and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to commencement of building permit review, pursuant to the
approval of appropriate govenunent agencies with jurisdiction."
Delete Condition 14 (renumber the rest of the Conditions).
Chapman said it is always a balancing act between the urban environment, where we choose to build our buildings, and the
City's commitment to trees. We have a tree protection ordinance and a Tree Commission. He has to balance that against what
he sees as a substantial improvement to this property. He believes it will be an attractive space and an opportunity to make
some improvements down toward the creek. He does not believe the tree ordinance was intended to preclude the construction
as evidenced by the Tree Commission's recommendation to remove the tree. The Historic Commission has signed off on the
building.
Swales agreed with the owner of the Blue Giraffe (Andrew) that the state right-of-way area needs cleaning up. Andrew
discussed the building not having an entrance right on the street and how it can work. Swales said the building occupied by
Christopher Briscoe on Fourth Street has the entrance on the diagonal with the corner of the building taken off. The Golden-
Fields building that won an award has a similar entrance on the corner. He feels this particular location is workable because it
is at the end of the block, the gateway; it doesn't necessarily have to face Main Street. It could have an entrance on the corner
without being a detriment to the design standards. With regard to construction of the building within the root zone, if there was
a danger of the tree catching a fungus, he is sure the ground could be treated with a fungicide. He believes there are creative
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7
REGULAR MEETING
=~~:' 2004 ~ 1
'II
."
1.1.
solutions to the problem. His main contention is this should come under the purview of the large-scale development due to the
large size of the lot and the existing buildings on it. Under the code, he doesn't believe a little private eating deck for the
restaurant in back qualifies for a plaza or public space. Ifwe take Stone's interpretation that this does not fall under large-scale
development, it seems it would be setting a precedent. Anyone that has a large lot could develop a building of 9999 square feet
and come back a year later with another building of the same size without having to meet the requirements of the ordinance. It
seems we have to address this as a large-scale development and therefore require a public plaza or we have to ask for a
continuation for the applicant to come back with a lot partition in association with a revised plan. He can't support the
application as it is.
Morris wondered how much of the building would go away if they left room for the tree. He refere:nced the letter from Tom
Meyer stating the roots go all the way to the creek and it is likely that any construction on this lot would release fungus to the
root system of the alder. To change the building to accommodate the tree doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to him. He can't
see it is a large-scale development. The survey shows the lot lines as dashed lines so evidently they were individual lots at one
time, so that does not seem to apply. With regard to a gateway, he likes the tree that is there, but ht:: does not understand how
to change the building. It looks like a 12 foot drop. The one thing he would like to see is to removle the power poles, the
transformers, the utility pedestal and everything else that is sitting on the comer.
Though KenCairn stated she has already made her comments, she added a personal comment. Historically, 20 years ago, that
whole area was a gathering place for locals. So while she believes it is valuable to upgrade it for the tourists and the Plaza
Hotel, she also sees development of it as a loss to the historic community. It's going to end up depleting part of the downtown
that a lot of the locals use.
Briggs likes trees but knows alders need their water. If they try to save this alder and put a building between the tree and the
water source, it won't live. When she was part of the development of the Downtown Design Standards, they meant definitely
for buildings to come to the street. She is concerned about the mitigation. She would like to see th4~ new trees to the north in
the widest part of the arc, something that will create a canopy almost equal in size even it takes 20 to 30 years to get there. If
it's a cluster to make that size canopy, that's all right. She likes the idea it is downtown infill.
In looking at the planting plan, Kistler thought it looked like even if you notched around the driplinl~ of the tree, there is about
four feet left over to the comer of the property. He would prefer to see the building all the way to the sidewalk. Fifty years
from now, it will look like we took the right course. He does not feel like this is a Big Box building. It doesn't matter to him
where the property line is.
Fields likes the building. The scale is not the issue. Weare trying to establish a precedent about what is contiguous and how
buildings interrelate. He thinks they can mitigate the plaza area. He thinks it is Haines' intent to crleate public space all around
the building. He wants to make it clear that this is an important issue. This is like the gateway building into town. There will
be windows peaking through the trees with people living in the building. It is infill and he likes the character and quality of the
building. Right now there is only 2500 square feet of ground floor area. If they had to save the tree, it would deprive
development rights to put a restriction to save the tree. Fields does not understand the wheeled arches. Is it a gateway into the
walkway? Molnar said the stand-alone that enters the future walkway is just a possibility. The Historic Commission expressed
concern that it might be a little too overdone. He would like to see a true partition between the windows. It is unfortunate the
tree is lost to development.
Dotterrer agrees with those in support.
Molnar added a Condition requiring wood clad windows on the front windows and a four inch mullion (separation). Delete
Condition 14.
Chapman moved to approve P A2004-002 with the attached Conditions and changes and additions to the Conditions. Dotterrer
seconded the motion and it carried with Swales casting a "no" vote.
OTHER
Chapman had an article in the packet from the Wall Street Journal regarding solar. McLaughlin told Chapman we might be
able to have an ordinance that would include wording that any access to the sun shall not be restrict<:~d. We might want to talk
about this at the retreat or a study session.
Briggs mentioned an article Swales had. Swales said in Arcata they have an ordinance with a cap on the number of chain
stores allowed in a community in order to encourage small, locally owned businesses. Briggs thought this could be on the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9,2004 a A
MINUTES I (/
agenda for the retreat. Molnar has found that we get many inquiries from chain stores but our design process is so restrictive
that they lose interest.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9, 2004
MINUTES
9
t!Jf1
II
I'
II
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
March 9, 2004
PLANNING ACTION: 2004-002
APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines
LOCATION: 88 North Main Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: C-I-D
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial District - Downtown
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: February 18, 2004
REQUEST: Site Review, Tree Removal and Physical Constraints review Pemlit to construct a
multi-floor, 8,325 square foot mixed-use building at 88 North Main Street. The Physical
Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" upon Ashland Flood Plain
Corridor Lands.
I. Relevant Facts
Background - History of Application:
In April of 1985, an application for Site Review was filed for the expansion of a covered
outdoor seating area (P A85-024).
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The property is situated within Ashland's downtown area adjacent North Main Street
with a zoning designation of Retail Commercial- Downtown Overlay (C-I-D). The
project will be located upon the area generally occupied by a large, uncovered wood deck.
The multiple deck levels currently provides an outdoor dining area for the adjoining
Ashland Creek Bar and Grill restaurant.
The ground beneath the deck slopes significantly from the existing public sidewalk
adjacent to North Main down to creek side. The "Tree Preservation" plan filed with the
application identifies existing trees within the boundaries of the property as well as trees
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 1 of 14
qA
immediately surrounding the project site. A large Alder, approximately 36 inches in
diameter, is located on the property eight to 10 feet from the existing public sidewalk. A
cluster if three Maples (12" to 14" in diameter) are situated along the lower part of the
property, adjacent to the waters edge. These four trees represent those species directly
impacted by the application.
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT REVIEW PERMIT
Flood Plain Corridor Lands are defined within the Physical & Environmental Constraints
chapter 18.62.050. Lands within Ashland Creek's 100-year flood plain, including the
riparian area within 20-feet of top- of-bank, are defined as Flood Plain Corridor Lands. An
application and approval of a Physical Constraints Review permit is required prior to any
development proposal proceeding on such lands. A portion of the proposed building's
footprint above structural support pillars, proposed outdoor deck supports and the
reconstruction of the existing pedestrian bridge are upon Flood Plain Corridor Lands.
Consequently, the application is subject to the approval criteria and development
standards noted below.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
The removal of trees greater than 6" in diameter on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-I,
or HC requires approval of a Tree Removal Permit. The application proposes to remove
the existing 36" in diameter Alder, located approximately eight to 10-feet from the public
sidewalk adjoining North Main Street. The tree is located within the proposed building
envelope. No other trees are designated for removal at this time.
SITE REVIEW APPROVAL
The construction of a new commercial building upon commercially zoned land is subject
to Site Review approval and compliance with all applicable criteria and standards
described in the Site Design and Use Chapter 18.72. The application proposes to
construct an approximately 8,325 square foot multi-story mixed-use building. The
building consists of three floors and an under-floor area, creating a two-story appearance
from the public sidewalk level along North Main Street. The lower floor (Levell)
adjoining the creek will house a restaurant, including kitchen, restrooms and entry/exit to
the proposed Ashland Creek Walkway (page 2 - Applicant's application). On this floor is
planned an outdoor dining and deck area overlooking Ashland Creek. The main floor
(Level 2) at street level includes spaces for retail shops and office suites, with direct
access onto the public sidewalk adjoining North Main Street. The upper floor (Level 3)
consists of tvvo, two-bedroom apartments each consisting of approximately 1725 square
qJ
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9,2004
Page 2 of 14
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
II
,.
II
feet. A building/site square footage breakdown is identified on page 13 - Applicant's
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.
The property is approximately 4,201 square feet in size. The new building including
decks covers 3,461 square feet or approximately 82.5% of the lot area. Accordingly, 740
square feet consists of new landscaped areas and the creek channel. The proposed deck
area adjoining the creek has been set back further than the existing deck. This provides an
additional10-foot landscape area adjacent to the channel. The area is proposed to be
planted with riparian plant materials associated with the creek environment.
The proposed building consists of traditional downtown architecture ,vith an exterior
fayade consisting of red brick and painted smooth and dappled stucco. The main entrance
faces North Main Street and is articulated with pronounced architectural features that
denote the building entrance. A marquee entrance covering is proposed above the front
entrance, between the adjoining pilasters. The building provides for an alternation of wall
areas with windows, doors and interesting architectural features that have been
incorporated into the overall design of each wall fayade.
Note: A comprehensive discussion of the proposal is described on pages 10-14 of the applicant's "Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law."
II. Proiect Impact
The location of the project adjacent and within Ashland's Flood Plain Corridor Lands,
triggers an evaluation and assessment of the project's impact upon projected flood events
and the adjoining riparian environment. Additionally, the removal of the 36-inch diameter
Alder must be analyzed in conjunction with the City's Tree Removal approval standards.
Finally, due to the property's location within the downtown core, the building design
must be consistent with the development pattern found along Main Stneet as reflected in
the Downtown Plan and Downtown Design Standards. With this in mind, the impacts of
each individual element of the application has been reviewed and discussed below:
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT
Development Standards - Flood Plain Corridor Lands
The Land Use Ordinance requires that the application recognize impacts and hazards that
the development may create and incorporate appropriate design options to mitigate the
potential impacts associated with the proposal. This includes potential flood related
impacts to the proj eet, upon up and downstream properties, as well as impacts to the creek
environment. Specific development standards are in place to guide both residential and
commercial development. The standards applicable to commercial development allow for
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
1'1
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 3 of 14
greater flexibility due to the type of use, location of use and intensity of coverage generally
pennitted within commercial zoning designations.
The primary development standard regulating the placement of new commercial buildings
adjaccent to and within Flood Plain Corridor Lands is described 18.62.070 (G). This
standard adopted in 1989, was incorrectly translated into the Municipal Code, so the
adopted language has been provided below:
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of the Flood plain
Corridor lands that are two feet or less below 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.
In essence, the frrst sentence defmes a potential build-to line. This is the closest location
that the building footprint or structural supports can conceivably be constructed, based
upon the elevation of the existing property. The second sentence sets a maximum distance
for upper floor projections or cantilevers, while the fmal sentence defines the elevation of
the lowest fInished floor level.
Staffhas determined that the project complies with part of the standard, but is in conflict
with part of the standard. The structural pillars beneath the building footprint do not go
beyond (closer to the creek) the existing ground elevation of 1870. Given that the 100-year
base flood elevation defmed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
1872, the building complies with the provision that new structures be located on lands no
more than two-feet below the 1 DO-year flood elevation. The second and third floor levels,
however, project further than 20-feet beyond the 1 DO-year base flood line (i.e. 18.72
elevation). Consequently, Staff fmds that the cantilevered upper floor levels conflict with
the above standard and should be modified to comply with the standard.
StajjConcernJRecommendation: Staffhas determined that the project complies with part of the
standard (18.62.070 G), but is also in conflict with a portion of the standard. Specifically, the
second and third floor levels project further than 20-feet beyond the 1 OO-year base flood line (i.e.
18.72 devation). Consequently, Stafffmds that the proposal is in conflict with the above
requirement and the building design must be modified to comply with the requirement.
Note: It should be recognized that the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060
reference two elevations - the FEMA 1 DO-year base flood elevation of 18.72 and
AsWand's Flood Plain Corridor elevation of 1875,5. The applicant has chosen to design
the proj ect based upon FEMA data, considering it to be more accurate and reflect the
area's existing topography and development pattern. OTAK, an Engineering and Planning
Firm out of Lake Oswego provided an evaluation of the two 1 DO-year water surface
elevations (Exhibit 7B). In their opinion, they conclude that the FEMA Base Flood
Elevation of 1872 is more accurate than the City's flood plain corridor elevation of
18.75..5.
1S
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 4 of 14
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
II
'"
1.1
Development Standards - Riparian Preservation Lands
The area within 20 feet of the top of bank of Ashland Creek is designated as Riparian
Preservation Lands. Development within this area is not only subject to the City's flood
plain corridor standards, but additional standards intended to protect the riparian
environment. In simple terms, a riparian corridor is that area associatled with a natural
watercourse, including its wildlife and vegetation. The corridor represents a three-
dimensional space, including the ground-level environment as well as the airspace above
occupied by shrubs, tree canopies and the habitat these environs support.
The existing wood deck of Ashland Creek Bar and Grill is only a few feet from the creek
channel, located well within the riparian area. The deck as well as much of the
development within the downtown along Ashland Creek area was constructed or installed
well before current standards regulating development within the creek environment. The
application proposes to remove the existing deck and maintain a 10-f<oot wide buffer
adjacent to the creek for native, riparian plant materials. Additionally, the project intends
to retain the cluster of three large leaf Maples adjacent to the creek (approx. 9-feet back
from water's edge).
Staffhas significant concerns with the project with respect to the riparian area. The site
plan identifies an approximate 10-foot setback from the uncovered, n~staurant dining deck
to the edge of creek. While this represents a 10- foot encroachment into the 20- foot
riparian preservation area, it provides a wider natural buffer than already exists or than is
apparent on neighboring properties. Staff s concern is that second and third floor levels
are cantilevered beyond the deck to the water's edge below. It is impossible to retain the
three Maple trees given the height of the bottom of the second floor above natural grade.
Approximately a third of the current tree size would need to be removed to fit beneath the
cantilevered 2nd & 3rd floors. The trees lean significantly toward North Main Street, further
complicating their preservation. As noted earlier, a riparian corridor r1epresents a three-
dimension space, including the air space above that is occupied by tre:e canopies and
associated functions (i.e. habitat, shade, bank stability, etc.). In Staff s opinion, the current
design (i.e. cantilevered 2nd & 3rd floor) precludes adequate long-term lestablishment of a
natural riparian area and will result in the demise of the three trees currently noted for
preservation.
Staff cannot support the cantilevered upper floor design and believes it inconsistent with
the City's development standards for riparian lands. Specifically, the standard states, "any
tree over six inches d.b.h. shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible and the general
topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained." In Staff's opinion, the
current design will result in the removal of the three Maple trees currently identified for
preservation and will make it difficult if not impossible to establish tn~es of any significant
size adjacent to the stream.
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
q"
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 5 of 14
Staff ConcernIRecommendation: The projection of the second & third floor cantilever
precludes the reasonable chance of preserving the Maple trees. Staff recommends that the
building design be modified so that the rear building fa9ade is no closer than a minimum
of 10..feet (measured horizontally) from the top of creek ban1e
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
The project proposed to remove the existing 36-inch in diameter Alder tree. The tree is situated
approximately eight to 10-feet from the public sidewalk adjoining North Main Street and is
described as being in good health. The criteria governing the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit
are described in 18.61.080 and are noted below. The applicant has addressed the approval criteria
on pages 50-52 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Additionally, Landscape
Architect John Galbraith and Certified Arborist Tom Myers have provided information with
regards to the health of the Alder, potential impacts due to construction and an evaluation of the
approval criteria (Exhibit 5).
The location and size of the tree has a formidable presence near the entrance to the downtown.
However, the location of many existing, healthy trees along the north side of the property (wfin
State right-of-way) provide a concentration of canopy coverage in the area. Staff concurs with the
applicant's fmdings based upon information in the application and the written testimony provided
by experts in the appropriate fields. Alders appear to be intolerant to root injury and are subj ect to
Annillaria root rot, which is prevalent in this area and is likely to develop when construction in
within 20- feet of the trunk.
The alternative of shifting the building further away from the street (approximately 30 feet or more
from the sidewalk) is inconsistent with City Downtown Design Standards, and appears contrary to
the existing development pattern seen along Main Street. Such a shift further limits the
developable area of the site due to flood plain management regulations governing the rear of the
property. In addition, there is little guarantee that, in the long run, the tree will weather the impacts
of significant grades changes associated with building construction.
Proposed Mitigation
If the COIumission approves the removal of the Alder tree, mitigation is required as a condition
of the Tree Removal Permit. The applicant has stated that areas appropriate for on-site
mitigation are limited due to the creek and existing vegetation along either side of the bank. If
the Commission believes there is insufficient available space on the property, the mitigation
may occur on other property in the applicant's ownership or control, or in a City owned or
dedicated open space or park.
The Ashland Tree Commission reviewed the application on January 9,2004 and suggested the
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 6 of 14
11
II
r
.1
1.I
following condition with respect to mitigation:
"4) Mitigate loss of Alder within adjacent State right-aI-way. Mitigate with large specimen
tree listed in the Recommended Street Tree List. "
Such mitigation planting on the adjoining State right-of- way is subject to the approval of the
authorized property owners. If the Commission believes this is an appropriate mitigation site,
it would be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain the appropriate written approval from
the State of Oregon for the installation of large specimen tree upon the adjoining right-of-way.
Trees Identified for Retention
As noted earlier in the report, it is Staff s opinion that the proposed retention of the cluster of
three existing Maples alongside the creek is impossible. To reiterate our e:arlier concern, the
projection of the second & third floor cantilever precludes the reasonable chance of retaining
the Maple trees. We recommend that the building design be modified so that the rear building
face is no closer than IO-feet (measured horizontally) from the top of creek bank. The Tree
Commission should be provided an accurate cross-section that clearly identifies the height and
location of the existing canopies relative to the building fayade.
Staff ConcernIRecommendation: The projection of the second & third floor cantilever
precludes the reasonable chance of retaining the Maple trees. Staff recommends that the
building design be modified so that the rear building face is no closer than a minimum of
IO-feet (measured horizontally) from the top of creek bank.
SITE REVIEW APPROVAL
Downtown Design Standards
The project is subject to the City's Detail Site Review, as well as Downtown Design
Standards. In Staffs opinion, the project team has designed a building that complies with
relevant City design standards (with the exception of concerns noted in the boxes above), The
buildings two-story scale with flat roof and parapet along North Main Street is appropriate for
this City block, representative of the staggered streetscape pattern seen throughout the
downtown. Consistent with Downtown Standards, the building maintains a zero setback from
the sidewalk and creates a strong sense of entry through the incorporation of a well-articulated
recessed entry with associated pedestrian covering above. The building width flows from side
property line to side property line, while the location of ground level and upper floor windows
maintains a consistent proportion of transparency. As described within the downtown's design
standards, the building incorporates prominent horizontal and vertical lines and building
materials consistent with other downtown buildings,
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 7 of 14
1t?
III. Procedural- Reauired Burden of Proof
I. The approval criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040 I. as follows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas
have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to
mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall
be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing
development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord
2834 S1, 1998)
(Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
Further, the project is required to comply with following development standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands:
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 cumulatiive fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits issued.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be obtained on the lot
from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development. All additional
fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood plain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as
feasible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060
must be designed by aln engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no
floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height
elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe
flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to
achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bridging of streams identified
as Riparian Preservation is subject to the requirements of 18.62.075.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevation
contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by section
qq
;
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 8 of 14
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
II
,.
1.I
18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be flood proofed to an elevation
of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other
Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channEll on all other drainage
ways identified on the official maps.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot above the
elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by
section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an
elevation 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 clhannel on all other
drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is
greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor L.ands. In the case where
development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have
the shallowest flooding.
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential strucltures 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 0 above.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood
elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood
plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in hei!ght, and is supported by
pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet
below the flood corridor elevations. .
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor land must
contain a building envelope on alllot(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.
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood plain Corridor
lands.
K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire
or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link
fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall
not be constructed within any designated f1oodway.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the levels
specified in section 18.62.070.C and 0, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10.
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be located outside
of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as outlined
below:
1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of development following the
adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood
plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in
the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the
shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize
this exception.
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 9 of 14
Ion
Further, the project is required to comply with following development standards for Riparian Preservation Lands:
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(8), 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 angles 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.
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
II. The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance as follows:
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied.
8. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant
demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use
Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity
within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the
residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may
consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees,
so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084.
Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
III. The approval criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.060 as follow:
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.
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 10 of 14
/tfJ /
II
II
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. 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)
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff has identified specific concerns with respect to the project's inconsistency with relevant
development standards applicable to Flood Plain Corridor and Riparian Preservation Lands, and
recommends that the project not be approved based upon the current site and building design.
Specifically, the second and third floor levels project further than 20-feet beyond the 100-year
base flood line. Secondly, the projection of the second & third floor cantilever precludes the
reasonable chance of preserving the Maple trees that are currently identified for preservation.
While the upper level design conflicts with the noted standards, Staff further believes that the
bulk and mass of the 2nd & 3rd floor cantilever over powers the natural creek environment and is
uncharacteristic of other creek side development within the downtown area.
The applicant has been informed of these issues and has indicated an intention to modify the
design to comply with these concerns. Consequently, revised plans may be available prior to or at
the public hearing addressing the items noted above. It is important that the revisions not only
demonstrate compliance with City flood plain development standards, but also clearly address
potential impacts to the three Maple trees currently identified for preservation and the adjoining
riparian environment.
As noted earlier, the application involves a Tree Removal Permit for the 36-inch diameter Alder
that is located approximately 10-feet from the public sidewalk adjacent to North Main Street.
That application outlines the justification for the removal based upon the appropriate approval
standards. Staff concurs that the location of the tree makes it very difficult to develop the site
without its removal. Attempting to incorporate the tree will result in a building design contrary to
City Downtown Standards that provides little certainty that, over time, the tree would survive the
impacts from the proposed development.
Staff cannot support the application at this time due to the inconsistencies with the relevant
development standards identified above. If the applicant, however, provides a revised design that
addresses the upper level encroachments into the Flood Plain Corridor and the impacts to
existing trees within the riparian area, Staff could find that the application is consistent with
applicable development standards and support the proposal.
Should the concerns raised above be addressed to demonstrate consistency with the relevant
development standards and the Commission chooses to approve the project, Staff recommends
that the following conditions accompany the decision:
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 11 of 14
I to ;;L.
I) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the installation of plant materials within Riparian Preservation Lands (both sides of the
creek) shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor in consultation with the Oregon Fish &
Wildlife Department and Ashland Tree Commission. Recommendations on plant materials shall be
incorporated into a revised landscaping plan. All planting shall be installed prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
3) That both sides of the bank be stabilized through appropriate armoring, such as the placement
of medium to large boulders. The location of proposed armoring shall be noted on the revised
landscaping plan and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the commencement of building permit
reVIew.
4) That a metal street tree grate, consistent with the standards of the Public Works Department,
be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy around the existing street tree along North
Main Street.
5) That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior components
of the project be included at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be
consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed
and approved as part of the land use application.
6) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission be incorporated into the final design
and approved by the Staff Advisor. Building sections identifying the height, width, depth, material
and texture of all exterior architectural features shall be provided with the building permit to verify
consistency with the: approved building elevations.
7) That the applicant submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all prirnary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other
necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to
final planning approval and/or building permit issuance. Transformers and cabinets shall be located
in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
8) That the building setback from the creek channel shall be staked on-site, verified and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to building permit issuance, and maintained throughout the
duration of the project.
9) That temporary erosion control measures shall be identified on the construction drawings,
approved by the Staff Advisor, and installed on-site prior to building permit issuance. Temporary
erosion control measures shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project and until the
final landscaping has been installed.
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 12 of 14
10'3
II
II
10) That the design of all storm water run-off outfall locations be reviewed by the Public Works
Department and approved by the Staff Advisor. Outfall locations shall situated as close to the
elevation of the creek channel as possible to reduce the potential for bank erosion. Outfall locations
shall be adequately armored and vegetated to reduce the potential of bank erosion.
11) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include
the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the
locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs, stoml drainage and catch
basins. Given the elevation of lower floor levels, sanitary sewer service may require pumping to the
sewer main located in North Main Street. In addition, connection to City water may require the
cutting of North Main Street due to the lines anticipated location on the opposite side of the street.
12) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to hydrant
placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the construction drawings and
reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
13) That all portions of the building located at an elevation of 1773 or be:low shall be flood-
proofed and designed to the standards identified in 15.10.080 and as suggested by FEMA for non-
residential construction. The flood-proofing measures shall be clearly identified on the construction
drawings, reviewed and approved by the Building Official, and certified by an Oregon registered
professional engineer that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted
standards of practice for meeting the provisions of 15.10.080 and FEMA.
14) That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the lowest habitable floor-level shall be
certified (by a registered surveyor) at two-feet above the FEMA base flood elevation or at or above
the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor elevation, whichever is greater.
15) That a covenant or similar deed restriction be recorded on the property prohibiting the
establishment or installation of any structure or similar element on the opposite side of the creek
( east side) that would in any way restrict the overflow of flood waters into the area beneath the
viaduct. The legal instrument shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the
Staff Advisor and City Attorney prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
17) That a sign, awning and marquee program for the development be included at the time of
building permit review. The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs, locations and
approximate square footage based upon the requirements described in the Sign Code 18.96. Leases
for commercial tenant spaces shall note that awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be
consistent with City Downtown Design Standard (VI-I), reviewed by the Ashland Historic
Commission and approved by the Planning Department Staff Advisor.
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
ItJ f-
Ashland Planning Dl3partment - Staff Report
March 9,2004
Page 13 of 14
18) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted on their January 9, 2004
document be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be
included on a revised landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building
permit.
19) That propos(~d Tree Protection measures address existing trees located immediately north of
the property within the State right-of-way. The approval of off-site mitigation on the State right-of-
way shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
20) That an opportunity-to-recycle site for use by project residents shall be identified for the
project in accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit.
21) That the construction drawings submitted at the time Building Permit review shall
demonstrate compliance with 18.62.070 (G).
Planning Action 2004-002
Applicant: Lloyd Haines
/e;S'
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
March 9, 2004
Page 14 of 14
II
'0
i z~.lt
/ ~ IIII
l ....
. ~I
ill.
z
C
:E
,J~
.or
l
I
I
I
tD
. lit
, .
'If
:.1
,
'.8
4.
\1Q)
L E.
('0 ~
. ""'&'-0
"C~
o ~
-68
t:._
., (\) Jl,.
. 11.
1.I
-=:r
c::>>
<::)
. ('.J ..
.C'f) .
,.-I
co
\..LI
\.I...
~.
0"0
(.---
- a
;:'\1)
~~
\,.;~
,,~
\1",
's..
o~
~
.11.
.
~.
~.~
..,.
\\-Iair
~}1 -,.:..
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC #, ~,iORING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will
be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on March
9,2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East
Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection conceming this application, either in person or
by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection
is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the
applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval
with sufficient sp$cificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an
action for damages in circuit court.
Ir
. :. .<..:.>""\
..' \
,.,\ '
I \ \\
I \ ,.'
j . ,....'> ,/'
It\/
~-,~~c_~~-- --
h
l'ti'"
A copy of the applicatiOr{ 'rC.uments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and
applicable criteria are at- ......,:J:) for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested;' A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection
seven days prior to the hearing and will be ptovlded at reasonable cost, if requested. All
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development
and Engineering Services, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those
in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length
of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless
there Is a continuance, If a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,
the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have
questions or comments conceming this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates
at the Ashlal:ld Plannir:lQ Department, 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-
735-2900
/
I
/
/
"', /.
....,.'- I"
..............", ",j '".......
.!~
./ ...\,
",
".
......
", I
'.
'Ii
PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 is a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Pe~mit to c?nstruct ~~lti-f1oor,
8,325 square foot mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical Co~stralnts Revl.ew ~er~lt IS reque~te~
to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. ComprehenSive Plan DeSignation. Commercial,
Zoning: C-1-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 9800.
APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines
II
/~
SITE REVIEW
2 0 C.n.teria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to
18.7 .5 --
approve or deny a site plan:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met a~d will be met
by the proposed development.
B. All requirements ~f the . Site Review Chapter have been met.
C. The site design complies with. th~ 9uidf ethl~~hadOtP~ed by the
City Council for the ~mplementation 0 I~ v. ap e .
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities I. for watter'leScte~~~y'
paved access to and through the deve opmen i.~ "
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
1'8.62.040 Aooroval and Permit Reauired
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued
.by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1 . Through the application of the development standards -~f 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 t.hepoten~al hazards that the ,
developm~nt 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
consid~red 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~ Ordinance.
It; f
1.1
SECfION 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 demon~te that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public
safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such
hazard or danger cannot -reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant
to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the
permit
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
f-
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 appr.oval
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval
of the pennit.
(Ord 28?3, Added, 06/0412002)
(tJ9
II
I"
1.I
REVISED DRAWINGS SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT
3-5-04
II ()
jr"-x ( ".---<
,. j n .
,
..
..
30'
N
N
CII
iPj 1!
JI5 t
II z
(p
::~;,if1{t.i;;;ir~if~;~'~;~~~8;t11;1~!: ..
,..', ...., '.'.1." '".""" ,...., ,., ..,. ''',
)it:;~i~j;. ~~~'.;:J;!f.~i~,:;;:;#ti:, lii;
. ., . ~. \..., .'.~ It. .' ,I". ,~, " . " "".' I . , I" "" I' \ I' .
" :;:;:'"y,::~ ::,:';~~'~:'J. .::;~:\;: ~,'!1: '~,(';. ~;;;;:):{:. ::, ',:,' ::;:;, ~)f.'::,:\' ',:i.
.~~.,
.~".,
1"."
s:
):::I
:::0
.
"'\
\.
/
o
c..n
f',..)
C)
C)
~ I
II! ~
II : c;
Ii ...
I
n 11:I ..
I I I ~~ i~Fi~i 0 )>
ql r.n..nm 0
ijj I Iniil us' 2:
~ ~~!!l f ::I lD
I ~ rl ~S4.
I I i l. f ~ iil
II " -
!"
II :;
~
I I I
'"
II
Gl
3:
~
::;:0
C;l
CJ1 I
. II
J"..,,) .. 'c,. ~~O!i~gJ ;HU"
c:::> J . ~;jm IdB~
c:::> z
if ~ ~ o..~~ P"~~ ~uunuu
~ ... i . ~ ~" ....
II; 2 ! ! r~u ~PP'" ,
~ d ~
~ i ~ hp~
~ 8 ... I
I s Pl~
0 ~
G
fi
~
l
l.l
(')
.
II
n
a
m
N
Co!
CII
Gl
"'---.----",<, '--~'~'" ./' (':, '
" " /"" I '. "" . '''n_
'~ ',"\
" ,f,
n
a
m
~I'
t~
Iii
u ~:n~~ ~ ~ .~,-".~..,,',. ...",
~I;o IUlil <5" ~~. -- ...
;:t. f :J CD .
~ .~ < a
~~ < c:
~?D ~ ~~
:r:Q tn
~~ 3-
(')
/1 p-
:s: 01
)::t
:::0
c:::>
CJ1
"'"
~
C)
~
~
.
n
a
m
N
w
~
CII
I ~ .
~ !
J !:f! ~
I ir fl .:. flU ~ . ,
t 5'f 0 0 ~ ~
~ 1.0'" W ~
W i ~
~
n
ICI
m
4i
il~
~i~
111m!! n (I)
~~ f 0 5;
~~ ~~
~E 5-
n
t 13
' . l. '
II
5:
)::::r CII
:::0
<:::>
c...n
F'->
~
c;:)
~
1.I
.
n
11:I
m
.
Co!
.
UI
f
2
i
1
j;
i
I
"
~
i:i
l
.
.
I-N"."
~Ullllnu
~ ~ H ~ '
2 ~ ~ n
~ h 0 ~
~ ~ ~
~
n
11:I
m
Ii ilil!!U.
~~ I ~ ~
~~ !I'
-t!l 5"
"
iIluOJnp
I~ U~!d
!l!rd~p"n
C5 ii1" -- ..
~ ~ r~U
8 ~ ~
a ~ '"
~ ~
!
If! ~
fll ...
f! ~ i
W i
~I~
~i~
6,"
e~~
~ l ,t
iff :"
j'T
.
n
a
m
~
w
VI
=:
:P
:::0
~
c...n
f'-,,)
c:::>
c::>
.,t:::.
1.I
.
n
m
N
N
w
w
....
~
..~
,
..
C/)
~
tt:J
tt:J
'-3
,
f
t
I
30'
CII
CII
.=
!i
i
Q
III
~
III
..
~
z
/
i
------------~-
N60.13'Z8"E 134.38'
..
c:
~
~
"
(Ii
-t
o
..
0'
Q """
=
..
z
i ~
l~ :
~
'"
i-
f>
g~ i;~ ~ ~ II
..~ nVl~9 t"'" ~
-;~ ~:J:-~~~--~-- 0 ----~----
:~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ g ~ ~ ~
:J:,"!il~:J: ro~>:e~ t::l..,>
o~~~:i: ~ ~~:Z ~ ~ ~
~~~~ ~ :<:-i:::~ ~ ~
aag g O~QJln ~ ..... n
~~:n~ 8Y'~:I: ~
(;j~JI' o!" "O~ [f) ~
~-. ~~~ z_
GI
:e
~
i . . a III
... 'lll~:aq~q~p Inn' ~~ "II" ",. ~
-"i!!! ~p~~ ... zo 'j! " m a ...~.
I z z
il ! '.- i8 ~nq~d ~UUIIUII a ~~ Inti! <0' $; ~.
"Ii iij ~ ' ;:fi E ~~
~g ~:::. I ::l (J)
!l iii I r~q i'. i i . i c~ ~ 0
zl i. ~np' If- e: >~ ~ C "\
U~i i Ii .> ~ Q Dl
~~s I w ~ ~ n ~ iiI im ~.
E"= Q ~ ~ ~ ~ 52 ~~ ,,"-
;l cl Cl !fl
! .. i i I n~ s n1ii1
i ~ ~~ :;
0
~ I J"
, i"
l . " ( ~1'
~
,~
;
...
i
N 0
r-
m
~~ ~
~I j!!
~~ g
~I ~
m ~
i z
i .
m =
~ z
~
z
a
n
w :llI
m
m
~
=
:llI
to
0
:llI
F
r-
r-
~
m
r-
..
~
Ul
~
lD
=-
\. -
~
\',
I .\
!\\~
I "~
01 ) r- r-
C .~ 0
m
lD " r- ~
... m
...
----- Ii :llI
...
r- 0
:llI
0 .. "II
0 ~ r-
:llI Z 0
~ 0
m :llI
.
...
~
c
=
z
...
I ~
l!!:l
r- II Ii;
ill
~ : .~ . II
m
r-
N z i~
...
r- ..!
0 9~
0 "II ;11
:llI r-
..
~ 0
z 0
:llI :llI
m
~
F
II
~
i
01
...
:llI
m
m
...
r-
m
<
m
r-
?'~
.,
i
In
n
..
4~ 5
ii~ .
c
-am 6
i
C)
2
II ~7
,
.
I>
S!
E
I
!
~ "I:
~<
ii
3=
~io
r-
.m
<
m
r-
w
...
r-
o
o
:llI
..
~
z
~
~
=
II
m
z
...
01
c
..
..
m
:llI
~
.
;
"II
r-
o
o
:llI
U~i ~
n~l~ i
n~1 i
~~ I' ~ I
II I i
~tiL:
~_~a I:
\Ire:
n
~~
~I
D
i
i
.
;
a
m
--L Ldn
_h -------.7h_IhU______.hm____mhm ____.,__h_m___.___ !" _._. ______m__. ______
~
i
CI
I
~
~
Ii
j
N
w
1:1__
II
II
H
I::J
..
Ul
~J
~..
Gl
/'
a
m
Illlu.l!n~..'...c
~~ ~ii!mi ~& ~
~~ f Q m
~~ " -
~~ ~
(')
.,.
'0
c
...
z III
III
)II III
ell hi
...
... N
Z
::Ill
C
III
)C
C)
II
r-
Il:J
C)
, I
I fit
.I~ r
I !
, I
"-HA" ~ ~ j ~
it i
'" ~
~I~!
,
I I -
I
I I 2
I ...
I
I I
,
I I
I
I
I
I
.,. I
... I
::Ill I
III
III I
...
I
I .
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I! ..
I "
!I . '
I 'I
I II
,I
I I'
,I
:!
I ,:
II
CII ..
n
I ~I m~.r- 0 )>
I I i II liiiii ~. ~
~i ! I ~ ~~~ r :] ~
! ~~ i ~c
II I I I: II 9 ... iii
'" -
I ./Il
d :;-
~
)II
(-j
n
'::Ill
III
III
:lli
N
en
Il:J
III
~
):=.
::0
c;::,
e..n
""
c::>
<:::)
...t:=..
i!U' :
I :
"m Ii! ! m iii' !~ .,Jl'
J~f,l,i, ! J~I !11,i, ! I ~a . !
1'1_"_ i lif ! ':.. !i
~!Jl! i ~lJ!!! !! i 'I
~~~i:i I ;IJ'k~~~i:i r ~ : f \
I,: " rl '5 ! I
. 0 I I
., z :
I : f
i z: I
! '0: I
::Ill : I
... I
Z : I
· : t
: ! I
...
: I
ell : t
: t
Il:J I
III : (
: f
! I
: (
! f
: t
: I
: I
I
: t
: I
: I
: I~
! I!
: I
~I ,.
; I
)II
I ....B11iUlu I-u......,
'I t I~IIP ~I ~I
ifJ'~ m rIll U III
e"'l ~ I i U1li
II, I u .
...
01
,~
...
III
::Ill
(5
. ::Ill
III
r-
III
~
...
o
z
en
II
ft
1.I
/--.~
(
..
..
~
III
Clot
(II
'm
n
-4 I
-
0
a. z
III \ ;
II 1
II i\i~
I
u- II
III
III .I
n I
i
CIl I
I
I
III I
'c
i=
CI
i
0
UI
~ <z-O' 3'-,,'
0
Z
(II
.
~
;:0
<::::'>
c.n
"-.)
~
c::>
..c:-
~ III
""EI1jUIRII-uu"",
1,1 ~ III! l' ' ! I l III III II Ii
II : ~ II rill i II !!I
'. I ~~ ~q
II
n
r
III
CII
'm
n
-I
-
o
z
C/I
'm
n
-4
o
Z
~
n
: I t
: I :
'I t
: t
I t
: I
, t
: t
, t
: t
: II
'II
I i I
: I'; I
I'll
: I
I I
: I
III
I
IJi! I
1.1 I I
!
I
I
d
e "i ~~;;li'- 0 l>
~ 6~ ~~r.Qpg CD ~
i! z r.i1il.,"~ VI (')
:'l ill--- u: -. ::J
C '~9~!(Q::;:
g ~!~.. '"f :J (1)
~~ ~ll:C;~ :E ~
II f " 0;
iH 3 ~ ~
. I I
N
fit
a.
CIl
.
1.I
,,~
,,~
'()~
~
h
~:
~"
tJ
U)
m
<'
-l
5
z
GI
~
~
r=
~
~
)>
<'
m
II'
~
r
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
I ~ ~
,H
~ i ~
~ j
~
g ~~~o
~~fii~ >-3
S! ~~~p G;
~ ~>-',f;l M
~ ~
M
'Jl
~~I ~
>-3
......
o
::z:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
I
~
~
~
~
i
m
~
~
i
N
o
I
%
~
I
;ft
~
i
o
II
I
C>C>
'Cr1
==
> >
~ 'Cr1
~ --3
>
.~ 0=
o ~~
::tl ~
M ~
8 ~
'.2: ~
~
~
O:Q
~"
~J
U~~UUUHUU~~b~~~~~~~A~~~~.~U~
.~d~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~c~__~~~ ~~c.
l:P~~~~~~~~~~1 ~ ~ ~~ )>~
:t ~ rf ~~f'i~~ ~ ~ ~~ :~
[~ ~ ID- ! tJ . , III
jl~ l off ff f~ f iI
~~q~~~~~~~~~q~~~~~~~~~~
ii
j q ~ . ~
~ fIll
~ ~
i
i
s-
~.
,6
Q
jun
~
1
If
\i
'~ f ~ r 'k t ~' .~ ~ ;:j.t' ={- ir A}'~ ~:; :~ .~ .::' :' ~;.
( i i
~ i
~ il-
l
[
~~~~~~gggg~~~~~~~g~gg~i
~~:~~~~::~~:tt~~~~:::~
..
~ ~
i ~
~ ~
/r
)>
01
('\
i i
~~
Q,Q,
U)
m
<'
-l
5
z
}I
m
m
---0
~
()
n1
<'
-l
<
m
11
m
z
<'
Z
(i\
~
~ffi~~ ~~ ~
~~3nl ~!! ~
~nl~g ~ (l)
IJ\UI~< . iI
. ~ m m m
ij\~~ ~-i
*~~ ~ ~
~it~ ~ ~
~m~ m Z
I
i
~
:i
o
z
jf g~;f -g1~ ~~ aari ~"B.ll i!l~f ~~~l ~1~~
m 21: ~t;'~ ~t ~"~~. ~;"3 -"01' ~~~J Q~~a
z &~~ i:l ~ll~;ii af:~ &~H~ 1~~~ !s-~l
< ~af ~!5l, ~1 \ll~fi~. ~s~f ['~~ i+Usr il"~
~ i~~ ali- Ui~i l~~~ i{~~ hi P:~
~ 1~ ~: j i~~~ ~!~j :fi:~ 11 '~1
"'i j! ~ l~!i~ !1i~ ~:!~ li .~~~
R~ Q.~ ' ils-t't .~l- :ri..R -n "(Ql
~~ ~~ ~ !~f:. .~~ iifl Jj :!;1
~~ [~ l Qi;~ I! ~~~ h ~!:
3-'1 Oil Q- Ii!'l\~ -, l!~!1li 1ji''1 !l
~~ it~ ii" ~;1~" ~: ?~~~ s.s- .~
lI-o: P i d~ll 1)~ all- ~~ h
i~ ~~ ~ :iRI ~t i!fi ~ Qi
!l!j ;..,---_(p~ a \lll~ II .." _-a ~ !!() ~:>
..() ~'~ l< ~ ll)( '''0 r:! \\" -1
J;:; ~~ ~ ' i ~g ~~ ~ ~ n j
~: l~ 1 !? ~1 {tl ~t i~
~s- i~ ~ ia: ~; ~Il ~ =i
I~ '('\ 'll ~3i ~~ ~~; ~~ ~~
I:: oF i - fI 0.::), ~S-" :1'1 .:5
!l" 5l. 5f -g:; ~~ 'i~ s:~ al:
~ ~ 1)i~ U flll 1l'r ~_i
,,_ ,=r~ ~~ II~
] [ i b l\~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [
~ -a ,*1l~ "Ii ::J-J; !:l. II
~ ~i-R _:~ ;;.. ~~
< ~!\\\ :r allll ..
~ -" J==" ~
9. :
lf ~ !! ii fa
~J:B.~ ~ = ~~ i :]
\I,6~ "\'~ h ~ m
~j!~!H~M:
1 i.~ ~g ,6" s ~
a ,6~.. ~~ ~<
c" !'r - }>
~ it l~ ; ~ ,,;j
~ g" ~ S'll ? ()
:lE~ ~_~ i~ g-z
~ ii-al ~f [
l: 5 \1 1;' !l~ 9'
!!~ ~:> ~ ~
!l 'l &'W ~" c
~ !ll ~~ \I ~ ~
II ~" 11~ a = I
l ll.~ ~!:l a~ :il
~ ..[ ~ ~ ~f t
z ~a..h ~.
! il fl ~~
t ~ ~ "l f~
~ \I ~ ~ & !)~
I ~~ ! ~ h
.. h g~ i!.
~ ~l}!l~ 1
" ~.a ~..
~ .. 1 ~.
~ /(0
a ..-
~. g~
~~
1)'
~
~~"t1 ..
f)s ~!F' -- 1>~
~ :c Q
't1 ~o.. ....
tZJ a~ it;:, Ul
~ ~o ~ ... ~
to ~:c ~ ~
~/ ~ -(:),~
J>eCT c--
~ .6
~ ~ ~'" 0.1<:
z ~ .Qs ~.b
[,Il ~ ,'~ 'c;.,
::j() $ 'A
tTl >- Ill> !! -;s:.
~~~ ~l':~:":>."~:/'>""
~~~ ' ,::- ", ,. ,,"
tTl::c> ' "
G;:::1 ""l ,~, ',:;'
m ~ <~
Cl. ~R, :)~\.
Ul ~ '~'
w
:;::
g)
~
~-~
80
f;i
~
~
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-l
Retail Commercial District and has a Downtown Overlay District designation (C-l-D).
Development within the C-l-D district is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site
Design and Vse Standards. Additionally, development is located within the floodplain of
Ashland Creek and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of Ashland Land Ordinance
(ALVO) Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review with respect to flood plain and riparian
protection.
.I 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 ALVa 18.62. Mr. Weston also participated fully in the architectural design of
the project. Applicant's plans are included as Exhibit 2.
FEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
1).0
Page 1
I'
, I
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 trunk 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 furniture at no I
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.
II
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 docwnent),
demonstrating how the application complies with the applicable substantive
criteria of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) as hereinbelow enwnerated
Exhibit 2. Project Plans which include the following:
Architectural
A-lOl Site Plan
A-l02 City of Ashland Floodplain
A-l03 FEMA Flood Way
A-l04 FEMA 500YR Flood Plain
A-l05 City of Ashland Flood Overall Location
FEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/r:1/
r
Page 2
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
A-I06 Surveyors Existing Topography Map (Existing Site Plan)
A-I07 Floor Plans
A-201 Exterior Elevations
A-301 Building Sections
Color Board
Exhibit 3. Tree Preservation Plan
Exhibit 4. Planting Plan
Exhibit 5. Tree Protection Guidelines and Tree Removal Application by John Galbraith,
ASLA, Registered Landscape Architect, dated January 29, 2004
Exhibit 6. Flood Hazard Assessment by OT AK Inc. Dated November 12, 2003
Exhibit 7. (A) Letter by Greg Weston, OTAK Inc. dated December 5, 2003
(B) Letter by Greg Weston, OTAK Inc. dated February 9, 2004
(C) Letter by Greg Weston, OT AK Inc. dated February 10, 2004
(D) Letter by Greg Weston, OTAK Inc. dated February 11,2004
Exhibit 8. Surrounding Area Photographs and Photographic Key Map
Exhibit 9. 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. Ordinance No. 2528 Adopting a New Chapter 18.62, July 7, 1989
Exhibit 15. Completed Land Use Application Form and Power of Attorney
rEa 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/ ~ ;),..~.
Page 3
Ii
,-
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd,
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, Tree Preservation and Protection and Site Design and Use Standards are contained
in Section V of this document. In 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(1) 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.
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.
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.
fEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
il ;J. \~~
Page 4
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd,
d, A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above
amounts, These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site,
regardless of the number of permits issued.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be
obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for
permitted development, All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the
Flood plain Corridor,
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain
Corridor as feasible,
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section
18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer, Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of
Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without
any increase in the upstream flood height elevation, The engineer shall consider in the design the
probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow,
Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is
exempt from the limitations in section (A) above, Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian
Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18,62.075,
C, Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15,10 to one foot above the
elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15,10, or up to the elevation contained in the official
maps adopted by section 18,62,060, whichever height is greater, Where no specific elevations exist, then
they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil
Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18,62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official
maps,
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot
above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater, Where no specific elevations
exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation 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
18,62,050,8; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official
maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater, The elevation of the
finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the structure,
E, To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands, In the
case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside
the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor, For residential uses
proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on
that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps,
but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek, Construction shall be
subject to the requirements in paragraph 0 above.
G, New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or
above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18,62,060, Second story construction
may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished
grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of
floodwaters, The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations.
fEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
I ~ '1
Page 5
Ii
,.
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, ltd.
H, 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.
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood
plain Corridor lands,
K, Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be
limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not
including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian
drainage or riparian preservation creek, Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the
levels specified in section 18.62,070,C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter
15,10,
M, Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be
located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek
Flood plain corridor as outlined below:
1, Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of
development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, This exception shall only be
permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and
the Nevada Street right-of-way, The new street shall be constructed in the general location as
indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest
potential for flooding within the corridor,
2, Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be
permitted to utilize this exception,
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.
SITE REVIEW
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards
FEa 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/~5
Page 6
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).
B, 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,
C, 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,
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.
8, 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, 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 II: 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-1 a) Orientation and Scale
II-C-1 b) Streetscape
II-C-1 c) Landscaping
II-C-1 d) Parking
II-C-1 e) Designated Creek Protection
II-C-1 f) Noise and Glare
II-C-1 g) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
II-C-2, DETAIL SITE REVIEW
II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
II-C-2b) Streetscape
II-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
11-0-6. OTHER SCREENING
rEB 1 3 2004,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/ ::< (,
Page 7
II
,-
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, ltd,
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 TREE STANDARDS
II-E-1) Location for Street Trees
II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
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 VI: DOWNTOWN ASHLAND
VI-1) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited.
VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as a 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 development.
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 areas,
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.
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
FEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines. Applicant
February 12, 2004
1:1.7
Page 8
Craig A, Stone & Associates, Ltd,
VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters
VI-J) Other
VI-K) Exception to Standards
TREE PRESERVA TION & 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.
ALUO 18.61.080(8) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1, The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the 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
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 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.
ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection. Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning
action or building permit,
A. Tree Protection Plan Required,
1, A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on
a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
2, In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which
clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site, The plan must be drawn to scale
and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet ,of the site;
b, Location of the drip line of each tree;
c, Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other
utility lines/facilities and easements;
d, Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches;
fEB 1 3 2004.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/ ~ <i
Page 9
II
,-
II
Craig A, Stone & Associates, Ltd.
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h, Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61,230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of
all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required,
1, Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in
this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall
be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the
boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel
being developed,
3, The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for
the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping
or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles.
6, The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints,
thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris,
or m-off,
7, No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection
zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
C. Inspection, The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City.
IV
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect
to this matter:
1. Property Description; Ownership: The owner of record is 88 North Main, LLC.
Applicant Haines is a member of 88 North Main, LLC. The legal description of the
subject property, according to the records of the Jackson County Assessor, is Tax Lot
fEB 1 3 2004.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
,1 ::l q
,
Page 10
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
9800 on map 39-1E-09BB. The shape and configuration of the property is shown on the
Assessor's Plat Map (Exhibit 9).
2. Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning District: The subject property is
designated Downtown on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. The property is
within a Retail Commercial (C-l) zoning district and subject to the City's Downtown
Overlay District (D); the overall zoning designation of the property is denoted as C-l-D.
The property is within Ashland's Commercial North Main Historic District.
3. 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 the proposed
development and contemplated land uses. However, connection to sanitary sewer and
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 run 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.
4. 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 the elevator foundation and mechanical
equipment. 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
J construction to accommodate floodwaters (during major flood events) and minimize
EES 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
I~~
Page 11
II
r
.1
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
potential flood damage. See, Exhibit 2, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and Building
Sections Sheet A-30 1. 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.
Levell 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. I 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
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-I07. 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-I07. 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
upper floor. The apartments will be 2 bedroom units with full kitchens. See, Exhibit
2, Floor Plan Sheet A-I 07. 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.
I 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.
,rES 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
IE.I
Page 12
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
7401
82.39%
Landscape Coverage (Including Creek)
17.61 % 1
Landscaping Required
Parking 1
o
0%
02
0%2
New Building Enclosed Areas
lower Floor (Shell)
Main Floor (Shell)
1,970
2,906
Upper Floor (Finished)
3,449
8,325
Total New Building Enclosed Area
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
FES 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
I 3 ;J-..
Page 13
II
r
.1
II
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.
5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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 flat roofs.
8. Characteristics of Surrounding Potential Impact Area: The physical characteristics of
the surrounding potential impact area are graphically depicted in photographs. See,
Exhibit 8.
9. Floodplain Corridor Land: Floodplain Corridor Land is defined in ALVa 18.62 as
follows:
ALUO 18.62.050(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 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
2. All 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.
[EB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
133
Page 14
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd,
4. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation in
18.62.050.8 and depicted as such on maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section
18.62.060.
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.
The subject site contains land that is defined as Floodplain Corridor Land because:
.
A portion of site is within the floodplain and floodway boundary as illustrated on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (Floodway). ALVO Chapter 15.10
adopted the Flood Insurance Maps dated June 1, 1981 for establishing areas of special
flood hazard within the incorporated city limits of Ashland. The FEMA floodplain
and floodway boundary are depicted at Exhibit 2 Sheets A-I 03 and 104. The subject
site ranges in elevation from 1886.43 feet at the street to 1863.22 feet at the
approximate west bank of Ashland Creek. The building, other than decks, is proposed
to be sited on land that is at an elevation of 1870.00 feet and higher.
-/
· Land within the floodplain corridor boundary as adopted by the Council in ALva
Section 18.62.060 is shown at Exhibit 2 Sheet A-102. The Base Flood Elevation for
the adopted floodplain corridor is 1875.50 feet.
· The floodplain corridor map adopted by the Ashland City Council July 7, 1989 (the
Official Map) depicts a floodplain boundary based on historic flood events and field
survey conducted by the City of Ashland Planning Department. The Official Map as
adopted by the City Council on July 7, 1989 also includes the FEMA floodplain
boundary. See Exhibit 2 Sheet A-102 and Exhibit 6.
· The site is adjacent to Ashland Creek and is subject to Riparian Preservation. Lands
designated for Riparian Preservation are sited in ALVO Section 18.62.050(B).
· The site is not within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel that is not
designated as Riparian Preservation.
10. Riparian Preservation: The proposed development is adjacent to Ashland Creek.
ALVO 18.62.050(B) designates land along Ashland Creek for Riparian Preservation. As
such, the subject property and project are subject to the standards of the ALVO 18.62.075
which establish development standards for Riparian Preservation lands. The standards
and criteria for Riparian Preservation in ALva 18.62.075 are:
A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section
18.62.050(8), 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.
fEB 1 3 2004"
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/3<{
Page 15
II
r
II
Feb 23 04 10:49a
Cr;-~~ g Stone
5(}~7790 114
p.2
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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.
.
The proposed development is subject to the standards for Flood Plain Conidor Lands
as set forth in ALUO 18.62.070 and these have been addressed in the Findings of Fact
(Section IV) and the Conclusions of Law (Section V) hereinbelow.
.
Trees on the subject site which are over 6-inches d.b.h. are identified on the Tree
Presetvation Plan Exhibit 3. One tree which is within the building envelope is
proposed for removal, all other trees outside of the building envelope have been
retained. This application does not involve the removal of any trees within the ./
Riparian Preservation area.
.
No streets or utilities are proposed in this project which would be within the flood
plain or riparian canidor. The only form of access to be within the tIood/riparian
corridor, is the pedestrian bridge and the same does not require fill or culverts within
the boundaries of the floodplain corridor.2 The only elements of this project which are
within the flood plan corridor are the piers for the patio area. The deck support piers
are not fill. -
.
The term Riparian is defined at ALUO 18.62.030(Q) as, "That area associated with a
natural water course, including its wildlife and vegetation." The area on the subject
site and along Ashland Creek that contains vegetation and possibly wildlife is not
proposed for excavation or fill other than what is required for the planting of
vegetation for the enhancement of the riparian area. See, Exhibit 4.
11. Timeline for Development: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.040(H)(I)(t) applicant herewith
testifies that, assuming these applications are approved in March 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 of a Certificate of Occupancy by City of Ashland
.
.
.
.
2 There is an existing pedestrian bridge which in this applicatio~ is proposed to be realigned and
reconstructed as a drawbridge that can be raised during flood events.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Uoyd Haines, Appficant
February 12, 2004
/36
Page 16
Craig A. Stone & Associates, ltd.
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(1) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff
Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
Criterion 1
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 ALVO Chapter 18.62
(including the standards in the Ashland Site Design and U se 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:
1. Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon Exhibits 7 and 13 - testimony from applicant's
expert engineers - 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
15.1 O.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.
I
[EB 1 3
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
16~
Page 17
II
'"
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
2. Riparian CorridorN egetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: As to the potential for damage
to the riparian corridor and its vegetation, this project proposed no removal of riparian
vegetation and, in fact, proposes to enhance the riparian vegetation along the new J
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 ALua 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 3
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:
rES 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
107
Page 18
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
1. FloodingIFlood 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 piers (which support the new/proposed deck) to further reduce
impediments to channel flow and to protect existing trees within the riparian corridor
and permit their preservation.
· Applicant has carefully studied the stream flooding characteristics of Ashland Creek
and designed the project to observe all requirements of the ALVa, AMC 15.10 and
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards.
· A portion of the proposed deck is within Ashland's designed flood plain corridor and
the same is permitted in ALva 18.62.070(L). See, Exhibit 2 Sheet A-I07. The
portion of the proposed deck that will be constructed on Flood Plain Corridor Lands
and which are at or below the levels specified in ALVa 18.62.070(C) and (D) are the
piers which support the patio deck and these will be flood proofed to the standards
contained in Chapter 15. 10.
· 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.
2. Riparian CorridorN egetation; 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:
· 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.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/3g-
Page 19
II
,.
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
· 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 V se 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 ALVO. 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 ALVO, and
no further consideration of additional development or the intensification of existing
development needs to be considered in this instance.3 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 Vse 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 ALVO. 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.
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(8) 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, Neil and Wrights Creeks.
3 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.
FEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/89
Page 20
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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 ALVO
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.
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:
· The provisions of Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 15.10 (Flood Damage
Prevention Regulations) are building code standards and requirements which are
reviewed by Ashland's Building Official at the time building permits are sought. The
Commission concludes that there is nothing in AMC 15.10 that cannot be met in this
project and compliance with AMC 15.10 will be assured through this land use process
FEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
1'1-0
Page 21
II
r
1.1
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
and Ashland's required review and approval of the construction plans before the issuance
of any building permits. Applicant has agreed to stipulate that his construction plans will
observe all of the standards of AMC 15.10.
· 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
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section
18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of
Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without
any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the
probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow.
Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is
exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian
Preservation 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
thereto. Applicant proposes to replace the existing fixed bridge with a drawbridge, to be
FES 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/4/
Page 22
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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 Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined
in section 18.62.050.8; 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 ALVa 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 Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve
creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage
ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow,
whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by
an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure.
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 ALva 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
fEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/4-~
Page 23
II
r
.1
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 9
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the
case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to
that area which would have the shallowest flooding.
Discussion and Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that it is
unfeasible in this instance to place all structures outside of Flood Plain Corridor Lands.
However, development is permitted in the Flood Plain corridor area pursuant to ALVO
18.62.070(0) and the same has been addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 11. Furthermore,
development within the Flood Plain corridor is subject to all other requirements in ALVO
18.62.070 and the same are addressed herein as Criterion 5 through 17. The Planning
Commission herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for
Criterion 5 through 17. Moreover, the Planning Commission concludes from the evidence
that the proposed building, which fronts upon North Main Street has been placed as far from
Ashland Creek (the area of deepest flooding) as is feasible. Additionally, the evidence /
(Exhibit 7) shows that during flood events, flood waters will overflow the creek's right bank
(on the opposite side of the subject property) which produces shallow flooding on the subject
property. 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 9.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 10
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside
the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses
proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structUrE:S 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 0 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 11
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or
above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction
may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished
grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of
floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations.
Discussion and Conclusions of Law: The above Criterion 11 - ALVO 18.62.070(0) - is
as it appears in the Ashland Land Vse Code. However, ALVO 18.62.070(0) was incorrectly
translated into the ALVO; as adopted by Ashland Ordinance No. 2528 on July 7, 1989, that
fEB 1 3 2.004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12. 2004
Itf.5
Page 24
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
same subsection reads as follows and it is this language which was actually adopted and must
be applied:
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Floodplain Corridor lands that are two feet or
less below the nood 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
Exhibit 2 shows that the proposed use is located two feet or less below the FEMA flood /
elevations shown on the official maps adopted in ALua 18.62.060 and further, that the
structure complies with the requirements of the second sentence of the criterion with respect
to cantilevering. Finally, the finished floor elevation is not more than two feet below the
relevant flood corridor elevations. Based upon these facts, the Planning Commission
concludes the application complies with Criterion 11.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 12
H. 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.
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 13
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 conc:ludes 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.
1:""['" l' t} ?o. 04
rr:,B " <J L ~.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
Iii h{
ii' -r
Page 25
II
r
..
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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
K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be
limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not
including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian
drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway.
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.
../
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 16
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the
levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D. shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter
15.10.
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
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be
located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek
Flood plain corridor as outlined below:
1.
Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of
development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be
permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and
the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as
indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest
potential for flooding within the corridor.
FEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/ ~..<'~)" .<
/' ;,.
f f ~iw~
Page 26
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
2. 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.
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 ALva 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 (ALVa 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 ALVa, including
requirements fur 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 -J
(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
ITS 1 3 2004,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
lif~
Page 27
II
,-
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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
ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone.
D. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section
18.72.040(A).
E. 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.
F. 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FEB 1. 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
11-1
Page 28
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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 hen~inabove, demonstrate compliance with all relevant requirements of the
ALVa, including those of the Site Review Chapter- ALva 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 ALVa Chapter 18.72. Therefore, the
Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 21.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 22
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)
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 Cornmission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 22.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FEB 1 3 2004.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
I './f
~l
Page 29
II
,.
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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.
R-1-3.5
R-2
R-3
C-1
C-1-D
E-1
M-1
% Landscaping
45%
35%
25%
15%
10%
15%
10%
Zone
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 .ALVO 18.72.110,
there are no area landscape requirements for land in the C-l- 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 mininlum landscaping
standards in Criterion 23. However, applicant here has provided landscaping along Ashland
Creek which, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, is in an amount greater than 10
percent. Additional landscaping (not a part of this application) is intended within adjacent
right-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-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following
development 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 frontage.
fEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/4-1
Page 30
Craig A. Stone & Associates" Ltd.
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 L:aw: The Planning Commission concludes that applicant's plans (Exhibit 2,
Sheet ~-20 1) 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 26
II-C-1 c) Landscapin~1
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 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 4 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.
FE 13 :t ,~i 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
I~o
Page 31
II
'"
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
· Regarding #2 above, and based upon Exhibit 4, 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 .A.shland' 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 ALVO and Ashland Site Design and Vse Standards, the removal of one
tree is necessary. ALVO 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 27
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.
Conclusions of Law: The subject project is within the Retail Commercial (C-1) District and
within the Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D). Areas within the DO'Mltown 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FES 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
1.01
Page 32
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 28
II-C-1e) 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-1f) 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 L:aw: 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 (A.MC). 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 W'ater 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.
Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that this application is consistent with
Criterion 29.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 30
II-C-1g) 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FEB 1 .3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
J5~
Page 33
II
'"
1.I
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 31
II-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) Inti" 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 incorporatt~s and adopts its
findings of fact and conclusions of law for the below Criterion 37 through 40 (inclusive) in
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. Therefon~, 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,
FEB 1 ,3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
153
Page 34
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
<r /'
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 p roj ect does not constitute i nfill within an existing parking 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 sho'ws 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.
********************
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 be 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.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
16'(
Page 35
II
,I
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 33
II-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.
3) Developments of one acre or 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-strel~t 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 cornplete 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 34
II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening
1) 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
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
I=-E8 1 3 2004
/5S-
Page 36
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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 inapplicabiHty.
.
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
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion
35.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 36
II-C-2f) Building Mat'~rials
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 L~lw: The Planning Commission concludes as follows:
. Regarding # 1 and based upon 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.
FEB 13 2004-
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
I~~
Page 37
I'
II
,I
II
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 Critlerion 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-1) Location for Street Trees
1) Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a desilgnated 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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) 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 driVl:~way approaches.
b) 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) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interf€!re 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
FEB 1 .3 2004,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
;/5" ?
Page 38
Craig A. Stone & Associate!;, Ltd.
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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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", the following standards will be used by the Planning and Historic
Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District:
:FB c~ 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/6~
Page 39
11
1.I
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Recommended:
IV-C-1) 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 fac;ade 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
fac;ade. 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 fac;acle 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.
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 of a 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 conlpatible 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
FES 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
157'
Page 40
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
is not an uninteresting boxlike form because it has varied masses and interesting
architectural ~eatures. 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 thl~ same block and demonstrate that its horizontal fa~ade 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
new building off North Main Street, is appropriately articulated with pronounced
architectural features which clearly denote the building entrance, consistent with #9.
· Regarding #10 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 # 1 O.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission c:oncludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 41.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
r:E' B ~~ 3 2' 0'04.
(_~,J~ .'
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/t:'CJ
Page 41
II
r
1.1
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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 # 1 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 #2 above, although it IS not expressed In mandatory tenns, the proposed
building has multiple stories.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of la'w, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 42.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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#l.
· Regarding #2 above, and based upon applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 the building's North
Main Street entry is recessed, consistent with #2.
'-\"""8'
I~ 1: ~~;
3
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/6/
Page 42
Craig A. Stone & Associatesi, Ltd.
· Regarding #3 above, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 shows that the only projected balcony
is the cantilevl~r 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 L:iw: 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
across the North Main Street streetscape within this downtown block, consistent with #1.4
· 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4 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. :J
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12,2004
/ ra ;2--
Page 43
II
l'
1.I
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 45
VI-D) Openings
1) 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) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent. (Illustration: Recommend 10; Avoid 4).
6) 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 #1 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 .
.
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 lavv, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 45.
3
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/6 :3
Page 44
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 SaIne block) demonstrate compliance with the requirements of#l
· Regarding #2, applicant's plans in Exhibit 2 show a canopy which produces a clear visual
division betwe:en 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. J
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning
Commission c;oncludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 46.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 L:aw: 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. Tht~ application is consistent with # 1.
t~- F B. 1 :-i ') nOt
.. _ _ U:....w ,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/6 ~
Page 45
II
l'
1.1
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
· 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).
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. J
.
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 lavv, the Planning
Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 49.
FEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/~5
Page 46
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 buildiing'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 1 & 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 follo'ws:
.
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 lint~s (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 stn~etfront.
.
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).
rEB 1 32004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines. Applicant
February 12, 2004
It::, c;
Page 47
II
r
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. (Refer to Site Design and Use Standards,
Section 11-0, 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 se:veral 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.
· 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-1) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited.
'jEB 1 ;) 200lt
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
If, 7
Page 48
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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 L:~w: 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-'), 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 fa~ade, 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 fa~ade,
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.
.
Regarding VI-.s, 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
:r:p .~ :) Imj'!J
~ -!..) .......>) .:- .',,; ". J'
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/(;, ?
Page 49
II
r
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Criterion 53
TREE PRESERVA TION & PROTECTION PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
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.
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 reas.onably be alleviated
by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC
18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans
or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the 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
rfB 1 :3
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/~ r
Page 50
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
removal of this tr(~e (Tree No.1) pursuant to the four standards in ALVO 18.61.080(B) -
trees that are not a hazard, and reaches the following conclusions of law:
· Regarding #B(I), 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 ASDVS 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
trunk. In Exhibit 11, applicant's expert arborist testified: "If construction is to occur
closer than 20 feet from the trunk, 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.
-I
· 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.
· 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 j
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
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
/70
Page 51
II
r
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Criterion 54
ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection. Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning
action or building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on
a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which
clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale
and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other
utility lines/facilities and easements;
d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches;
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.2~\O.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of
all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in
this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
=-rp i '3"
, ::....,;J .l. ~. in,o, L)
~V' r
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
171
Page 52
r ""-""-<::
Craig A. Stone & Associates, ltd.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall
be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the
boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel
being developed.
3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved siUns shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for
the project.
5. No constructiron activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping
or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles.
6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints,
thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris,
or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection
zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the Tree Preservation Plan
and Tree Protection Guidelines submitted by applicant in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5, prepared
his expert landscape architect, fully complies with Ashland's tree protection standards.
Therefore, the Cornmission concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 54.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VI
SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS STIPULATIONS
Applicant herewith agrees to stipulate to the following matters:
Stipulation 1. H[eating/CoolinglLighting: 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.
1 :J
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
11~.
Page 53
II
II
Craig A. Stone & Associates. Ltd.
Stipulation 3. Recycling: Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.115, applicant 'will provide an
opportunity-to-recycle site for the use of the project occup~mts and said side
will be located within the interior of the proposed building.
Stipulation 4. Mitigation for Tree Removal: Applicant will mitigate the: removal of Tree
No. 1 as shown on Exhibit 3. However, because spac1e on the subject
property is limited, the location of the mitigation planting \vill 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 envisiqned
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.
Stipulation 5. Tree Protection Measures: Applicant will fully observe and implement the
tree protection measures recommended by registered landscape architect,
John Galbraith, in the Tree Preservation Plan and Tree Prot~~ction Guidelines
submitted by applicant as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5.
Stipulation 6. Fill: Fill will be engineering and constructed in accord with applicable
requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70.
Stipulation 7. 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 1 OO-year wat(~r 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).
Stipulation 8. 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
Stipulation 9. 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.
Stipulation 10. Irrigation System: All proposed living landscape areas on the property, will
be served by an automatic underground irrigation system.
(rp
, _.:....J
J ~3. ?nnU/l
- _':.r ~t
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
I?!J
Page 54
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Stipulation 11. Drainage: Applicant will provide plans prepared by a qualified engineer
re:gistered in Oregon which address how adequate drainage will be provided
for this project in accordance with city standards.
Stipulation 12. 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.
Stipulation 13. Applicant will comply fully with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 15.10
(Flood Damage Prevention Regulations) in the preparation and submittal of
construction plans for the proposed building.
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 submlitted 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 COffilnission, 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: February 12, 2004
FEB 1 3 2004
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Lloyd Haines, Applicant
February 12, 2004
17t/
f
Page 55
II
II
,.
.
n
a
m
"
z
Ii ~ ~
II; ~
II ~
"'-
",
''-''...........,
.......,......,........
'"
'"
'....'...,'-
\.
)
/
"""" '~ ;
',~~ j
\ 'I
\ I
N
N
w
.
~
z
..
...
:lD
m
,. m
...
~i'
\
UI
30'
I
lilT
~g~ ml
~~~ "
-r\ ~~~ 5:
~~~ z
rr\ i~ I
ro I
(f) I I
I
~ I
I
I
~
r-...) GI I
c:::>
c:::>
~
.;,.
o
'!4
.
~I.'.I.
'1
. ..E
.,...:Ii
1"1
'I
II
f
I
I
i
!
l
,.
, . . . " ~ ~
~H
.. "
~ '"
z
.
n a
~.~ I !
~:~ ;!
.
H;:: c
~d I j;
z
C)
s
175
~~
zo
o~
~~
6lg
~~
~~
Q~
~~
:;
o
~ 0 ~ 11
nn
~' n
i q~. ~
~ D t ~
~
!-~".
~UIIIUUI
~nn'
gqn
% h ~
~
.
II
n
a
m
UI
It)D
-f-
N
w
~
"""f"\
rr\
ro
t-t
~
r--.>
c::>
t:::)
..p..,
CIl
~
I . . n P
III ~
t z ~
I' m ~
f !:I!!I~ .
~ i . III
~ il S ... z ~q
~ ~ "
~ if ~ 2 z
a
! II i i
I a
- - - - - - "
: : ~ : : ~
~~"
!i.-::i;
IU
i~~
m
~~ ~~~i;~ 0 )>
zo ~~~~fi m n
n nn~1 <C. ~
~~ ~~o~ f :J CD
~~ I ~~ ~ &
~; ~ ~ ~
n ~
n
17ft,
II
.1
II
.
.
n
.,
m
~..,
C";)
G;:)
f)!<
u
--f-
N
w
r'j
/'-/r
.
""T"\ UI
f'T'\
0::1
~
~p
Cll
~ . n ., m
~ ... g~nq ~~ ~~~i6~ l? ;?:,>
i . III a
E nnn .
z ~ Z z6 in~H ~. ~
if! o~
~ ~ i n~ < n ~~" t ~~
i ~/i":E ~ ~~ ~~! f :J <D
I II: .... a ":' ~ P U~ . rG~ ~ ~
~ ~ c ~~
0 ~ w ~ a~~ j; .~ ~ Q in
i w -< z ~~ ;1\"-
d i Cl ~~ .(11
; S ~~ S-
O
~ /7 7
~
"'1"'\
fT\
to
J--I.
CJ.:)
I"'V
C)
c:::::>
..po.
~
N
w
~
'ft
m
E _ j
g; J ,I
0( ~. oj
m
~
:II
'ft'
r-
o
o
IClI
,.
i
I',
// "j'
. '. ,~:'t
w 7~~)
OJ
~
~
~
I
I
t
$
~
'"
%
~ m
lri!!l ~
~~ g ...
;'100
:.. ... ,.
13 i
iP
~ ~
g ~
-c
" r ~
~ -
a
E
II
II
n
IClI
m
tJ ~
--I-
."1
'.
.ill
.-
"
, "\. /'
'\';~' .~._,,~-~./ UI
,----- \ '
\ '. .
\'\, \
/ \".,~\ \
..--.-'- \': - \ \'\
'\ \
\' \
\. \
\ "\ \", ...../'
\ .-'
\ ,'\
\
\
\
'i
. \ .. .
?
./
."..'''- \ . \ '
'<~\\ \
,~ 1\'\
\'" ./ \,
" '\, /' ,\
'~<.
OJ
n
IClI
m
~ii
U!
~~~
H ~~:H~ ~ ~
R'" hf~if c3' ~
~~ ~,,~! I :J <n
~~ rc~ ~ &
>>~ ~ in
2~ ~-
~~
5"
(")
/7
r
1.1.
a.
.
n
.,
m
"'i"'\
fT'\
t.o
~
~
I'->
c:::>
c:;)
~
'"
Co!
'"
'\
''\'';
#
Gl
III
:I:
If ~ ~
fJ CIl.
roo
"'en
e i
, . on
~~
~$il
..~
g!
!iE
Cia
Z;!!
o
o
a
Q ~ ~
~ ~ ~
..< ~
n
ICI
m
-0 m.. '~P" 0 )>
~~ ~~r.[9lj CD ..,
o! ~~! n III n
~~ d!{ii <0' :r.
~o.~ ~;:;~G [ ::J CD
,,- ~h~ <$l
~.~ ~ ~ Ei
~: R ~!E-
n ~
n
~ . ~
~~~
~..~
u~
~~~
~q
i
/7C'(
--v"\
fT\
to
J-l.
~
f'.)
c:::::>
c:::::::>
~
II
r-
II
n
m
ICI
N
N
f\
Co!
Co!
....
0't'>{'~"i;9/~~/fI:>
<.. 6
:.~~..~.
~
"S2
"",
,
,
t->
",
~
~
,.;
'"
t->
. ~~::),;~;"~'
',y s
..
C/}
;S
~
~
'-3
i
t
;,
,j
!:
<1 UII~
. ft.,i
, (I I
I!;i:'~
~a::iI;I
=::1-
"
30'
~ K:~~
~~~!i!
;3~~~
IO::lllVl
z~ ;;;!
0'
UI
UI
N60'13'28"E 1.34.38'
~
c
::!
~
o
:llI
Cli
-4
o
.,.
g' >'-'<,
e
:z
: ~
Ol~ :
~
,~
=
i
I:)
~
::t
m
.,.
5:
z
o
;-
!->
>9 ~
_______n~~~_~~-h--
~ ~. g~
x "::!-t g
r gP:>~~ ~o
~ ~~ r- Z '"
~ ~:-'O;~
o e"..0> ~
o oU> CD~
"'Ill III
fTl' ~:r:
g~~~
z:.. z
0-3
t"' 0
nt'""'nn.--'1:1 __nm.m.n..un.
o 0
>-<: 0
t:Jd~
::t"''1:l
> ::t
Z n
~ ~
GI
~
~
.
z
..I B ..
I" .
1.1 i -"
b!ilg
d
W lil
.
'~cll!!
=g!l!
i=~
.""
-z.
ii1-<~
ill-
~,,~
i
CI
ICI
m
i~~i6~ 0 ~
;'W'U m ()
~n{ i! <0' ~
~"jm ~ :J CD
~~m~ :iE~
J 0 ..,
~ ~~
y>
5"
(")
"~~
~f~
~{ .
~~~
I
1
lit
Z
~
.
C
I;
i
CI
S
I 'tJ
~
.
~
;~
",
to
J-l
~
"->
C)
C)
~
.~
;;
-4
i
N Q
,..
m
~~ ;i
il ,..
~ 'ft
,..
ig g
~~ ~
w ~
I z
i .
ffi =
~ :I:
m ~
Z
a
n
"" :II
m
m
~
=
:II
It
Q
:II
;:
,..
,..
!;l!
m
,..
I"
I
..
~
,.. c
.m
< ."
m ."
,..
"" m
'ft :II
,..
0
0
:II
Ul ." 'ft
~ ,..
Z 0
. 0
." ::a
.
:II
-4
I:
m
Z
-4
(II
GI
I .
. ... w ~ n
I ! sL n
il ~ ~ :II m Q ~ ~
E ~ r~
if I .. ..a. . I
r- 00 ~
i ... ...... ~
! l! :g ~
I ~
~
i
. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.', '"",.""
I . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
....:..,.,~~.~~~
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Jll'l
I: li!j
I-
. i;
z U
-c;!
'ft ji
...
0
0
:II ::a
m
;:
;:
I:
.
i
(II
-4
:II
m
m
-4
,..
m
<
m
,..
n
...
0
~
'ft m
,.. ::a
0
0
:II
." 'ft
~ ...
Z 0
:II 0
m :II
(II
;:
c
=
Z
-4
nu ~
n~~ i
~~s~ -
nUl
nf~ i
~"j~ i
f:_!:!l51 .
~ ~~ ..
n
/<Z(
1.I
a
m
t" m In
=::"::-==::===~=::-=========== =::====~======::::====~:::~= - ~=~':"====l==
N
1
11
..
i
i
.
..
i
""
I II
~n~nn~_n_n~__._ I
I I
I" 1m /
I
I
-I
..
il
I~
01
~~
~
i
~
/I
i
i
i
i
Ul
I
I
I
Ill!
j-
GI
l~
lD
1
i"
a
m
~~ ~~~i~~ ~ ~
~~ ;l~~n en 0
~i nH~~ cO' ~
~~ r~~~ I ~ ~
~~ l 0 ~
1:~ ~ ~~
~~ ...en
~~ S-
o
~i;;
~jl.i
H~
i~ffi
""'A
J'T\
co
~
~
I'-)
c:::>
c::>
.p.
.
n
ICI
~
tIl
'0
c:
~
::z: U!
m
n . U~
:llI tIl ~~i
m ~
m
~
~
N ::z:
tIl :llI
ICI c:
m
m
><
g
III
,.
ICI
g
w
",H
f.
~I~ ~~lg::1ll
g~8gg::;g:
..
Ul
ell
m
:~
m
:llI
o
:llI
m
,.
m
~
~
o
Z
tIl
~
i
f
I
~
j
I
III
z
cf! ~
UiN
If ~ ~
!i i
II
III
c ~
. :
III
c:
F
ICI
i
C)
::z:
m
Q
:z:
-t
~
,.
n
c:
~
-t
o
Z
;J!'- ~-
~I~ ~I~
S;8 ~!g
:I~;;I::;
~~
z
'0
:llI
-t
%
.
m
tIl
~
tIl
ICI
m
Ij~
.:_ ~L
f. I~ rl~
t ~g
I ~I
.
n
'S
1ft
:-
is
:-
1ft
r-
~
is
z
III
~~
~!
it
a~
~
~ ~ ~
~
I~~
m
N
to, ~ /1
l:
tJj II
:'
"I
.J I,
j'
........J"--- ....~
w
~.:HI~
E,8 ~ g
tIl
~
:llI
m
m
-t
ICI
m
~~ ~~~i;~ 0 ~
~~ ;f~m: m (")
~~ HIli! cO' ~
o ~~". ~ :J CD
~~ ! =~ ~ ~
>>~ 0 E;
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ...en
~~
'"
z
5
..
c:
G
i
Cl
:3
..
Ul
ell
:J
(")
III
w
..
z
if! ~
II: ~
S I
.
.
.
'm
n
-t
o
Z
.
'.
c
F
ell
i
CI
!
o
z
..
n
~ 0
d
~
~ :: ':. ':. == ~
" :. . ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
n
a
n
n~
Id
if
i~1
~i~
~
I
I
~
'" ""I'"'' '"
i
~
o
:;
~
i
I
~
.
'm
n
-t
o
Z
I
I
I I
~z: ~:j
~ i: ~
~ I
~... ..,J I~ I I
i:~ i:~
~:8 ~I~
ml ~
I
I
I
I
I
--,
I
I
I
I!
.
n
~ii
~i~
~~~
i
;:
.
c
6
i
Cl
S
~~ ~~f;i ~ ~
~~ i*i~J~' ~
~! i!Il5.:J Q)
~~ 1=:$ I <: 0
)>> i ~ <: C
~~ k 0 .,
~~ 3 * e..
Q~ VJ
It~
II
m
III
w
l!
j!
,.
CII
GI
m
W
i"(\
~:j
.C)
n Z
C;l
'j!
rn
rn
~I
'~~
11
!:l!
{'\
z
(j\
r
m"\,
m
-t
\
'~
\~
-~\\
\
\
\
(--~\
V
-h-
'V'
h~1
'.. I
~h
~
I
..
-ill
,11-
1::::'1
::111::::
Jrill
lJliT
:111
f~m
111=
=111
:ffi=
1=11
::111-
~mM:
Jl::::1 Ill.
-1-
imm~
lm~m
=111=
11::::11
:111=1
1=111
=111=
1::::1/
;Ul~1
g~:;l ]jl ~! H~l:;l ~lll ~1~f ~~'~l H~~
i1: ~ ~] ~ i- ..\) ~~: ~i'i 3 ~~-q ~R ~ J ~ ill a
~g~ i31 ~lll~il ai:~ ~U 1:~~ i&t~
1;1 i~l}~ ti ~il~~ g.~1t ~H ~~~ ih~
-n~3 "j~. ~-\r-~ R-I\/\~ . It. :H.! ~~
'\: ~lli ~ ilhQ,g- '-g-~ ].H ~S-; ~~~
jQ, ~'J1 il.1~:t' ~tf ~&i ~i .-;
.~. Qi ~ ~h~ ~ &~~ !'h &i ,~~
H ~f) ~ ~~ii~~ ;::~~_ t}R -n -.J~
a ~~ ~ .~-~~ ~- ~'3~ n
g ~ ;tg ~ ~~~: · .~ ~ ill ~!: ~! l
!~ [j : ii:~ I! ~; ~ ~i:
<l' ~'!l. It . l!l \\\) I: if .0
-~ lio' ii" ~ 1\; 3\) .1\ sS" t\
1il Ii 5' ~l~q ~Q, ~~ ~~ ~~
~8 ~~ ~ ~Hl II ~~~ ~ Q~
g~ !l'~ G ~~'<G ;/\ i S!:~ ~5'
!:!t ~ 0 x i 0 0 l!. ' 0 ~ \) ::.;.
~.... \;i~ i- .-n~~ !I.E ~\) ~3 '}\'i
-.. Oil. ~ \) ~ 11" !!... \) ~ LQ"
!&' ~!, 'f ~~~ s~: e~ o~ ~:
\) ~ Ii ~ G z~ \) ~ ~ :'5 ~ i\ \I~
R-ii "'~: i.: ~ ~-;: ~ i'o
io ~o 0 ~io i~ ~[ ~~ ~~
3~' ~ ~ h' ~ i () "" \II &" ~ir
I!'i. .F ~ = g ~5- ~~ ~~ .-:\
~~ ~ ~ ~g~ ~u ~~ ~~ i~
[i [1: ~~ ~l 1 ~ :~
~!I -.I:".==!)--" if
o 11 i ' ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ 1! K
~ ~ il~ =! u It ~ U
] ~ It~ . ~ ~ij' _~~
< 0 !\\) ::r ao
g, -iii ~....:; ~
~ :
rn rn ~
X X
~ Vi
-; rn
Z Z ~
(j'\ (j'\
~ ~ nI
()
rn m -;
cl cl ~
OJ AI i1l
rn
~ :r ~
)>
~ z z
(jI
<
rn
tj
ii"
c
..
~
cr
li~{ ~:;:.i i:j:>;l;:; ~ ;.;;~; i:::; {t:~.\~~'~;ri\
~' ,~) .
()
~
~
ii
~
~
~
j
! '~ ~ \.. ~ ~ ~ ;'.: ::: ~ i ~ ~' ~.. ;-::: : {: ~.~ !;~ ::;~' ;~.:{~~
g
-n
\)
..
..
iY
~
I II ~ 'I lJ : ': I ~
[ l ~~
1l.11
II ! ~
=i
0 ~
a
~.
~ ~ l' ~ i'FI'I~ 2 Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \1 ~,~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~;>II.
:\1
gJ
I I I i~i' I I I I ~
I I - -- ~
~
III
\fl
I ~ro-~ [>[> h ==
g @~~g >-l
~ ~ ~ ~ >
~ ~~~'" M \fl
OJ.' ",.i;l M ""'3
~ ;g
t':J >
fT1 M Ii 0=
r/J
("") ~~I ~ ~~
"'" """'I
...... J:i ;.: ~
>-l ~
~ 0 ~
N I 1 1:2 ~
c:::::t ~
c:;:)
c."..)
,
,
\
\
\\
\\
\\
./:'\
- \\
\\
\\
\\
~.
,
\\\
\
,
\\
W
~
.. "
If [J .f! ii i m
Oj~!5 Q= g,~ 1 ~
' . ~~ Q,i ~ ~
~ j~ ~~ d ~
1 d Il.~ ~9 R 11
..- -~.. \)it .. <:
~ If l~ :[ ~ ~
~ g fl ~o j C)
.. li:~ l i ~ (II :z
g ~- . 6f 0
.. ~i -8:~' ~
i: 1.("\ ~ 9'
!f: :tll :el) :.....
~ 11 s-;;- ~ 'f
1 i: ~R q ~ j
. "1\ ,,,~ ~:: ?
J~ {~ Q~ :;j
~ ;~ ~ ~ ~i t
S: ~~ Ji ~~
! ~l fi JT~
l i ~ ~! !~
8 Q (I ~g ~ ~
~ s:i ~ oj ~.
"' 1:'1 d -Al
'- II" - G'2
: !'~ 19 ~*-
~ ~ j t~
~ i~
:> ~~
\I'
~
(;).~~ .
')c;; .-- <?~
-4. !2 0
:2 ~o ~ ~
<OJ'~ '" W
~ i~ ~ E
c:s./ ~ ~-
J>eCT ·
~ ~
~ ~ q ~
~ g ~ PI> ..,
~~E5 ~ v
80 ~ ~ ~ ~ ....:,~;: '~::'>~\:
~ N Z 1"5 .., "
~ ~ ~ ; ~~.~~'/
~ ~ "~~s"J~
(EXHIBIT 3 J
II
("-1=1- J.IBIHX3]
\~c~s~ ~ 8 ~
~E.. ~ti",i
, \ ; G~ ~
:: ~~ Z
ii; UJ.....:l ~
<;;:. !:; dil~p..?1 ~
";. if ~0U-l U
A"\ ~ '" t: ::1
<y." ,. Q '" Z
"h" "c'r- 0
<~'D~C~ ~ ~ ~
"JW' ~ ....l 8
i
~ ; ~&
ili .0 _ In
~
~ ~
~ \)
~ F
.! Ji '-
I ! - 1
i M-
! i i
>
~
~ ~ ~
~! I 1 i.
I-~ ~ }~
~~ii III
\
~
\\
\\
1"
..:..
, -',
-,
\
\
~
Q
- ij3 z~~
I ~~ ' ~ ~ ; ~~~ d
~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~
~ ~; i ~ ! ! ~<~ ~~~
! ~~ m t ~ ~ iI\~~ gii:~
! i! ~ ;~ ~~ ~~ n~ . ni~
<KJ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ t~ ~~~~~I 'D~JI1~
I 1: F !o&!~ ~~ ~ t:::~ID~
~~ ~\) ~~ ~I ~t - ~~t~
. ~~~ d i! i Wi ~h; ~~;~
~~; ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~3i~
c-i.n-.ttri.o r'
~ ~ .~
x~ in. e~
~~ ~~ ~~{I
~~ ~ z ~~ ~~~~ ~~
~f ~ i ~ 10)- xr2~ ~~
U bl i I: ~~~! i II
~g ifi~~ ~ ~R ~~~~ ~ ~~
I . ~I I )
I=--
~!:!::Il=:ilr ,.
.', , ;-II~
Co in
L II
Co-'
7.
~
Q
d
s~
=?
~
Eo-
rJJ
~
==
rJJ
(""""}
as
cs
~.
I
I
d
~I .
~
...:l
:I:
IJ:J
~ I~ ~~
z
j ,~
~ I~~
~ I
~ :;;
...:l . ~.' :;;"' Vi
~ "';;';~~ ~
~~~81t;
@~~~ ~
......;ap.~ ~
I
II
~;~
..., "l
z ~
\Q
"
\!}
z
i=
z
4:
~
m
~
,
z
()
i=
~
'I ,~
~
~
.1\ =.
: tC
.. }f"
~ J ./.,1
IIi' /1
-=:r)
A/
/)
./,~
Page 1
Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
For Shasta Building '03
January 29, 2004
~XHIBIT 5- J
TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
~c\SrEil~
. 264 ·
~~~
~ OREGON ~
~ OWT/89 ~
CfPE ~C
Contrary to popular belief, the root systems of trees are not deep taproots in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top
12 - 18" from the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's drip line or canopy. See tree
and root section drawing Figure 1.
A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy,
vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying.,,1 If roots on one side of a tree are
severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old and mature trees are less tolerant of construction impacts than
younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups.
The species tolerances for trees to be retained within the Shasta Building project are as follows:
RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELECTED SPECIES TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS2
RElATIVE
(X)MM()NNAME SOFNDFICNAME 10LERANCE COMMENIS
BigleafMaple Acer macrophyl/um Poor Declines following the addition of fill
Alder Alnus sp. Poor Intolerant of root injury
Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Moderate Moderately tolerant of Toot pruning.
The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by
species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree.
I Matheny, N. & Clark, J. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land
Development. p. 72.
2 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178. FEB 1 3 2004
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
/3b
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
II
1..1.
.'
Page 2
GUIDELINES FOR OPTIMAL TREE PRESERVATION ZONES3
~'IUl.FBANCE
Good
'IREEAGE
DlSTANCEFROMlRUNK
Dil1ndcdilmi
~
Poor
Young
(<2001'0 life expectancy)
Mature
(200/0-8001'0 life expectancy)
Over mature
(>80% life e tancy)
Young
Mature
Over mature
Young
Mature
Overmature
.5'
0.75'
Moderate
1.0'
0.75'
1.0'
1.25 '
1.0'
1.25'
1.5'
Figure I
Drawing used by permission of Dr. Gary Watson, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois.
Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional
service, is the property of Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, modified, or
changed in whole or in part, for any other purpose without the express written authorization of
John Galbraith, Landscape Architect.
3 Ibid., p. 74.
fEB 1 3 2004
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.
/g7
Landscape Architects & Site Planners
"~'..".,',.."",'".,"','.'.","..'.'....'.'.'..........'.........
'. <../ -:., -, ",' ",' "
". " _,J '. ,,- "
,~-" -,,",/
','--" -'" ',' . \
". "'. - x..< ",- <.
January 29, 2004
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 Tree Preservation Plan as Tree No.1.
Tree No.1 (Alnus sp. - Alder):
The tree referred to on the attached Tree Permit, No.1, is an Alnus sp (Alder). 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.
1455. HoLLy STREET, SUiTE A · MEdfORd, OR 97501 · (541) 770-7964 · FAX (541) 770-5164
liCENSEd . BONdEd . INSUREd . lANdSCAPE BusiNESS #6661 . lANdSCAPE CONTRAGOR #lZ~9B . GENERAl CONlRAGOR #104274 . I.ANdSCAPE ARdliTrn OR-#254, CA-#29BO
www.galbraithandassociates.com · contacti?;ilhandassociates.com f fa 1 3.lQU4
II
1./,
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.
Sincerely,
John Galbraith, ASLA
Galbraith & Associates
~C\Sl~
.~~
~~ Jobn L. Galbraith ~
OREGON ~
m 04107/89 .A~~
C/PJ; f&,LV
Page 2
/'11
FEa 1 3 2004
<<
CITY OF ASHLAND ~
TREE PERMIT - - ...... -.--......
. -
Applicant's Name AN1IITPf.7ll/Z.A-L pe;,iMIJ /AL>flJ::.~ Home f1tone 4Hb-o-111
Address Day Phone
Property Owner (If different than above):
Name t-~p H,6uAlEh Home Phone #~~-q~
Address '5/ PI~ e;" Day Phone
Location of 1ree (Note adcbes$ if ~ent than above and ind~ a sketdl on back side of paPft if necessary_):
:S~1'f,1';I\ I8tJ1l..D~
N~/AJ ~/~, A~t+~D
1)pe of 1i:ee: A-/-IVI/~ - Number. /
~&J / ~VO~ - ?O'
, Tree Diameter: _- -~t:
Request to: Plant Prune Rentove Other
F.xpJanation of Request 77LFi? I~ . ~7:e.p U/T;LI-/A/ 71-1-6 ~/U//~
j:AA//!!,~~
Date
Applicant
-
TREE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
_ Approved _ Denied Appr:09ed with Cooditions
Conditions:
. . . -
/" ' Dateo:!"
Tree Commission Member
Date
Designated Rtr~~ or City ~
"
This pem;Ht is valid with the ilbove two sipatures for a period of days &om
All "WOdt must be completed within this time. and subject to the ~ conditions-
/90
rEB 1 3 2004
'II
DEC-lt-03 15:37 FROM:OTAK Inc.
1.1,
lU:blO~ t:i~b b~~b
r,",,,,a:.
l:I/O
~,
...
17355 sw boones ferry road . lake oswego. oregon 970J5-5217
(503) 635-3616 . fax (so3) 635-5395
www.otak.com
~XHI~= fo J
November 12, 2003
Mr. Uoyd Haines
51 Water Stroot, 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 miniomi7..e impacts to Ashland Creek
during flood conditions- 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 Ordinances.
Ashland Creek
According to the IIAshland Creek Hydraulic Investigation" (Otak, 1997), this reac~ 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 until 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 existing culvert and adjacent to the
subject property would be reduced during flood flows.
Flood Hazard Elevations
The City of Ashland participates in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
National Flood Insurance Program. Ashland Creek is part of that program and the
lOO-year floodplain was mapped1 adopted, and published by FEM:A in 1981. Maps
published by FEl\1A 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 requi.r~d 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 elevatioD 1,872 feet. The
ARc;"r-rf:CTURii . CNCINEERINl;> . LANDSCAPE ARl;HIYI!!CTURE . PI.I"NNING . SURV~TINC. 6< MAPPING - uROAN DESIGN
. ., a.-:~, ,."'^^'. ,"')4' "".l-~,,\r.f\"IlR1:'_C:P\R~..."11120.2L0LW1>c1
/11
DEe 1 2 Z003
OEC-11-03 15:38 FROM:OTAK Inc.
lU:b~;S b~b b~~b
a-1-\\.lrJ:;,
g/Q
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03
Page 2
November 12, 2003
City of Ashland maintains a separate flood hazard zone based on observations made during
past flood events. The City of Ashland BFE at the location of this 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
building. 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 un~erfloor space per City of Ashland
Municipal Code 15.10.080 (B) "Provisions for Flood Hazard Protection: Specific Standa.rds."
As shown in attached Drawing A-30l the First Level, Second Level~ and Third Level will
all be entirely above both the FEMA BFE and the City 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 frOIn 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
Attached Drawings A-I06 and A-301 show the finished ground contours and profile relative
to the existing ground contours and profile. The volume of fill associated 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 of the
estimated volume is summarized in Table 1.
I .\.Dw._.....\ 11~" lRM\.An...il\",.oRRXSP\lLai.D.~s.lt11!.On.ol.wd
/ 1 :2-,
DEe 1 2 2003
, II
1..1.
DEC-11-03 15:38 FRUM:OTAK Inc.
lU:QIO;:S b';sQ Q';s:;:'Q
r,......a:.
"0
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03
Page 3
November 121 2009
Table 1
Estimated volume of till below the Base Flood Ele-vation resulting from this project
Fill M(l.ten(l.l Assumed Dimensions Volume Below Volume Below
FEMA BFE Ashland BFE
(ft' ) (ft')
Concrete 198 feet of, 8 inches thick, foundation 1,330 1,796
Foundation Walls wall. 10 feet high to FE:MA BFE 13.5
feet high to Ashland BFE
Concrete Patio 4$3 square feet of area. 24" thick, 966 966
Deck including floor joists and slab.
Elevator Shaft! 8? square feet of area. 10 feet high to 830 1,114
Mechanical FEMA BFE 13.5 feet high toABhland
Equipment Room BFE
TOTAL 3,126 3,876
Estimated Flood Storage Mitigation
The proposed project includes removal measures to balance (and over.compensate for) the
fill that will be placed below the BFE. The removal measures include exca.vation 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 unknown 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
(ft~) (ft')
Patio1 Hallway, Hallway width is :4.5 feet. 289 ft3tfoot of 907 1,300
and Stairs to hallway width for Ashland BFE, 202
Ashland Creek fts/foot of hallway width for FE:MA BFE.
Bar & Grill
Soil excavation for Excavate along 43 feet of the stream.. 2,279 4,085
crawl apace Max of 190 ft:/ft of bank for Ashland
BFE, 106 ft3/ft of bank for FEMA BFE.
Average removal along stream is half of
maximum (95 fts or 53 ft3/ft) of bank.
TOTAL 3,186 5~385
L: \Project\I l.BOO\1182G\Admin \CO&RESP'\R~ 1 I 12OSl,() 1.wpd
! ""1>
DEe 1 2 2003
U~~-jj-~~ jO:~~ ~KUM:ULH~ inc.
lLJ:::J"'~ CJ~O O.:l=ro
r,...,",~
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building 103
Page 4
November 12, 2003
Conclusion
This project allows for increased channel conveyance if other restric:tions to flow in the
vicinity 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 required by the City of Ashland Municipal Code 15.10.080(B)(1)
have been incorporated to allow the automatic entry and exit of flood-waters between
Ashland Creek and the flood storage volume. All of tbe new building will be located above
the Base Flood Elevation_
If there are additional questions oX' concerns regarding the site design relative to the flood
functions of Ashland Creek, please call Kevin Timmins at (503) 699.4577.
Sincerely,
Otak, Incorporated
~~
R. Gregg Westont PE
Principal
KT:RGW:bld
c: Craig Stone, via Mail and Fax (541) 779-0114
Bobbi Becker
David Richardson
Enclosures
L:\.hQiect\ll&OO\ 11826\A.dm.U1 \CORB.&SP\H;aiDC'O 111209LO 1. wpd
/14'
DEe 1 2 2003
, II
DEC-11-03 15:38 FROM:OTAKlnc.
10:503 835 5385
L I,
PAGe
l/t::I
-
17355 sw boones ferry r~d . hIke oswego. oregon 97035-5217
(503) 635.3618 . fax (503) 635.5395
www.otok.com
~X~~~IT ] J
December 5, 2003
Mr. Lloyd Haines
51 Water Street, Suite 222
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Shasta Build~ng ~03 - Development Standards for Floodplain
Corridor Lands - Otak Project No. 11820.
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 this project prepared by your architect, Dave Richardson (a copy of which is
attached), Otak offers' the following comments and opinions:
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.
A. Standards for fill in 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 "floodway" i$ a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) term. The {loodway 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 located more than 10 feet from the FEMA Floodway
boundary. No earthen fill is proposed within the {Wodwczy or ten feet from it.
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 displa.ce floodwater shall be
limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on
the lot.
ARCHIT"C;'f',,,~r: . EN&INEERING . L^NDSCAPE ARC,,'TCC;Tutte . PLANNING . t;VRV~"'INO Be MAPPING VADAN ot:!:IGN
, ,\ -ow..w-\ I 'SlM\ 11Sl?I:\A';"'lft\('.oRRF_~P'\H.2i.ll.l!612050aL()1.W!Hl
I a ,--^
I 15
DEe 1 2 2003
DEC-11-03 15:36 FROM:OTAK Inc.
I D: b"~ t:i~b b~:n::lb
....AuC
<1:./ l:J
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Shasta Building t03 - 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 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 I paving material).
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 Floodplain Corridor.
Otak Comment - Fill material shown on plans does not exceed the permitted amounts 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 - 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 designed by a.n 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 lOO.year water surface during large flow events.
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 eleva.tions exist7 then they must be
constructed at an elevation often feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear. or
Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks
defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other
drainage ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high
flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable
floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the structure.
1.: \Pmied. \ 11800\ 1182G\A.dmin \COR.RESP\Haine31~0603Ul L wpd
)1~
DEG 1 2 2003
'II
L I,
DEC-11-03 15:37 FROM:OTAK Inc.
lU:blO~ t:i~b b~::fb
r-MuC
~,c
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Shasta Building C03 - Developmertt Standards for Flcodplain
Corridor Lands
Page 3
December 5, 2003
Otak Comment - The Third Level contains residential apartment units. The plans show
tha,t this lel.Jel and all access rQu,'tes wUl be located more than one~ foot above both the
elevation contained in the mops adopted by chapter 15.10 and the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 18.62.060.
1. Basements
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions
located within the Flood plain Corridor.
Otak Comment -The plans do not show (], ha.bitable ba.sement in the proposed building.
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.
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
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.
Otak Comment - There are no proposed fences shown on the plans in conjunction with
this project.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands
and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood.proofed
to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10.
Otak Comment - There are no decks or structures at or below the levels specified in
section 18. 62.070.C and D.
I.:\h()ject'\ll&OO\ 1 1326\Admin '\CORRESP\H.unecs 120s0.9LO 1. wpd
/91
Dre 1 2200.1
D~~-11-~~ Ib:~~ ~KUM:U~A~ Inc.
lU:~"'.j t:tJ~ OJ~O
r"M""'Co
. '
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Shasta BuildiTtg 403 - Development Standards for Floodplain
Corridor Lands
Page 4
December 51 2003
We trust this letter will assist you in addressing the City of Ashland's various application
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 Weston7 PE
Principal
KT:RGW:bld
c; Craig Stone, via Mail and F~ (541) 779-0114
Bobbi Becker
David Richardson
Enclosures
~\FVOS~\ I 1300'\ 118!G"'\Admin\COR.RESP\Ho.ine:Il~LO L ~d.
/q~
If
DEe 1 2 2003
'II
L I.,
=-
17355 sw boones ferry road . lake oswego, oregon 97035-5217
(503) 635-3618 . fax (503) 635-5395
(EXHIBIT ].e. )
Www.otiJk.(orn
February 9, 2004
ai,nes
/ treet, Suite 222
, OR 97520
Estimated 100-year Water Surface Elevation for Shasta Building ~03
Otak Project No. 11826
Dear Mr. Haines:
This letter is in response to review comments provided by the City of Ashland regarding
the proposed Shasta Building located along Ashland Creek. The comments relate to the
100-year water surface elevation of Ashland Creek and as referenced in City Ordinance
18.62.070 (G). The language in this ordinance has not appeared in published versions of
the City's ordinance received by Otak prior to our previous analysis, however we
understand that it states that,
'Wew non-residential uses ,nay be located on that portion of Floodplain corridor lands
that are two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in
18.62.060. Sec01Ld story construction ,nay be cantilevered over the floodplain corridor
for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance fr01n finished grade is at least ten feet in height,
and is supported by pillars that will have ,nini,nal i,npact on the flow of floodwaters.
The finished floor elevation ,nay not be ,nore than two feet below the flood corridor
elevations. "
As discussed previously, this ordinance has significant impact on the development
potential of your property and therefore, the actual100-year water surface elevation is of
critical concern.
Background
Based on observations that are specific to your property, you have expressed the belief that
water surface elevations during a flood would never reach a water surface elevation of
1,875.5 feet as is specified in the Ashland Flood Corridor Maps of Section 18..62.060. This
observation is based on the fact that the parking area and land along Ashland Creek
opposite your proposed building is much lower than 1,875.5 and would provide an overflow
for floodwaters resulting in a 100-year water surface elevation better represented by the
FEMA map for Ashland Creek.
/91
fES 1 3 2004
ARCHITECTURE . ENGINEErnNG . l.ANDSCJ\PE ARCHITECTURE: Pl.AI':r.J'NG' SURVEYING & MAPPING URBAN DESIGN
L:'\Project\11800\ 11826\Admin \CORRESP\Haines020904LO l.wpd
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Estilnated 100-year Water Surface Elevation for Shasta Building '03
Page 2
February 9, 2004
To support your observation, Otak was asked to consider additional survey data, hydrology
and hydraulic data available in the FEMA Flood Insurance Study and the "Ashland Creek
Flood Restoration Project Report" (Otak, 1997), in order to provide an estimate of the 100~
year water surface elevation in this specific reach of Ashland Creek.
Given that the on the ground survey data recently obtained is more accurate than that
used for the FEMA Flood Insurance Study and that the previous Otak model was not
intended to be used for floodplain mapping, we considered the available data sources and
performed the following analysis.
Analysis
Based on the recent survey data provided by Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. in the immediate
vicinity of your property, it is apparent that Ashland Creek would begin to overflow its
right bank at an elevation of approximately 1,871.45 feet. In an effort to estimate the 100-
year water surface, we needed to know the conveyance capacity of the parking area that
would convey overflow during a flood. The representative cross-section shown in the
attached Figure 1 was assumed. The representative cross-section follows the alignment
shown in the attached Figure 2. Manning's equation was used to develop a discharge rating
curve by calculating the discharge at various depths in the overflow channel. The average
bottom slope forthe overflow channel was calculated to be 0.036 feet/feet, and a roughness
coefficient of 0.02 was assumed.
The HEC-RAS model developed as part of the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project
Report" (Otak, 1997) for existing conditions does not assume overflow to occur at this
location in Ashland Creek. This is probably because that model was intended to determine
the potential impacts of the types of flows encountered during the 1996 flood and that
much of the flow in Ashland Creek during the 1996 flood escaped the main channel of the
Creek upstream of the Winburn Way culvert. However, upon review, the model is capable
of providing a discharge rating curve at this location in Ashland Creek immediately
upstream of the Lithia Way culvert. The rating curve can be compared with the rating
curve developed for the overflow channel available through the parking lot across from
your property in order to estimate the 100-year water surface elevation.
The chart shown in Figure 3 provides such a comparison. For each water surface elevation
shown on the 'Y' -axis, the discharge predicted for the main channel can be added to the
discharge predicted for the overflow channel. The water surface elevation, at which the
sum of the two discharges is equal to the 100-year flow rate, corresponds to the
approximate 100-year water surface elevation.
~,)
fEB 1 3 2004
L:\Project\11BOO\11B26\Admin \CORRESP\Haines020904LO l.wpd
:11
L I,
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Estilnated 1 DO-year Water Surface Elevation for Shasta Building '03
Page 3
February 9, 2004
Re suIts
Assuming the 100-year flow rate of 2,259 cfs used by FEMA to map the 100-year
floodplain, our estimate shows the 100-year water surface would be approximately 1,872.4
feet at the location of the proposed Shasta Building. This corresponds with 540 cfs of
overflow through the parking lot and 1,719 cfs in the main channel.
Assuming the 100-year flow rate of 3,100 cfs used in the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration
Project Report" (Otak, 1997), our estimate shows the 100-year water surface would be
approximately 1,873.0 feet at the location of the proposed Shasta Building. This
corresponds with 1,240 cfs of overflow through the parking lot and 1,860 cfs in the main
channel.
Conclusions
The water surface estimated above indicates that the actual100-year water surface
elevation in this reach of the stream is closer to the 100-year elevation reported in the
FEMA maps as 1,872 feet. Based on the available information, we can conclude that the
100-year water surface elevation is not likely to get as high as 1,875.5 feet. Therefore, it is
our opinion that the FEMA Base Flood Elevation of 1,872 is more accurate than the City's
floodplain corridor elevation of 1875.5.
If there are additional questions or concerns regarding the information presented in this
letter, please call Kevin Timmins at (503) 699-4577.
Sincerely,
Otak, Incorporated
~~~
R. Gregg Weston, PE
Principal
KT:RGW:bld
c:
Crai~ Stone
L_~t
David Richardson, Architectural Design Works
Enclosures
c2.S(
;-r
:~,,",B 1 3 2004
L:\Project\llBOO\ 11B26'\Admin \CORRESP\Haines020904LO 1. wpd
~NICl1Ina
ill
C)
C)
~
r'.....
(X)
~
3~aI~a
C)
C)
(Y)
f'
CX)
~
..J
<[
r-
CJ
r-
<[
r-
::>
CJ
C)
~
l()
~
-
(\j
f'
CX)
~
~
f'
CX)
~
1 -, -' ~.. .. _r'^"~"-^"~,"^_'._m',."'_m'l
!
I
I
(:) I
0' I
\ "~I'
.. ..
--
w-...
, .. -- w ~ ^" ---~._-~~-~. "."1
~~> I
I
I
I
..J
<[
r-
o
t-
<[
''''''''--'b;;
o
(l.Ck
<[u
II
1/
11\1/'\ ~NI1SIX3
(3 (3
~o ;2~~-..
~
o
--/
<+-
L
OJ
>
o
L
o -
<+--P
o
C--/
o
-- 0)
-PC
U--
OJ..Y
lflL
I d
lflCl.
lfl~
00)
L:::s
Uo
OJL
>~
-_ -P
-P
dOJ
+>U
~C
OJd
lfl~
OJ OJ
L>
Cl.C
OJO
CkU
T""""""'i
w
~
=:J
LJ
I--i
LL
fEB 1 3 2004
'" ...1 ".'. t.., ...J ....... !...... ...:... ... ...... ...,.. ........1 .....
.. ....1.... 1_....--'. ._...._. ._.......1....
i I ! I I
.... ''''r .-.. r- .T -_. r'" -....,.... T' .....1 -... r
-t - r- -t -1- -1- + -1- +-
.1..... I, ,.) I...! I
._. J _ L... .1__.! ..,. _... ._.. ...I.. ._..! .._.. .L ....., . .. _...
I ! ! 1 I I I I
l-r! -1- -1- T -,- T
-t - r -t -1- -1- T' --1-- r
~ - t- -l. -1- -1- +- -I-'!-
.. ,I ! I I
~ I !
0;;, ........ I'" T'"
'r": I !
0; 0;;' .......j.... '"1''' .!.. ......,.
~ ~~. "..t....... .....: ...... .1...
'-'" ~ f f ..L ,....._
c c c ~... ...... ..... ... "''''f ....
o 0 0 i I
~ ~ ~~ 'I'
- ^"i -- ~ > >~. ".....,....; "1 .... ...
Q) Q) Q)i .
=j~ ~ ~ ~F:=t=i=t u~~-Li-
- i -- ~ ~ en t -1- T -1-- I I -r I T-
.....-+ -- ~ 5 5 .:.......:....;. ..; .;-0... i.,... . .., :
__..J. _..w ~ W W I( _1- _L-L 10_-1-- .J L _1_ L L L \ _1-
=~- t ; ;f-;-t-;-~i~~ ~ -~ .
1 .. . I . U
... ......\ L ...1 ..... 0
I (j) :
, 0
i
('f).
1"""'1
Q)
s::
s::
~
~
o
~
o
~
~
Q)
~
o
"'0
s::
~
1 ~
! ! -. -- 1" -I - 1
-- "'1 - 1- '"t - 1--- T --/- t'
- -t - }.-. -+ -1- --1- ..1--
J. I I I I \1
i ... ! I ~ . I .\ ! t
-.. "'1 - ! I -1- t -1-- 1- --I 't
- -+ - ~ -+ -1- t -1- +\-1--. +-
--t _... ~ ~ -:- t-:.- ..~. ..,:t-
i I I I!
"'1 1'......1 I \
- -+ -~. -+ -1-- t -1- + --I"{ +- .....j .... I..
-L _ L_ -1 _1__ -1 _1_ 1_ _J j L ..; .,_". L" ",,1
_ J _ L J. _1_l_l_l_I._\L. '" _ .._! _ L.. J _._
I ! ! ! i I I ! \i i I !
"
-; -. +- ._; -.- {\,wi ...' -1-....,,1.... l^........}
_1_ .L _.L,,_.L -L.. L -1
1 ! I l!!
T T -t" .'-, ..... 1'" "'j
-1- T-'!-- r "'- rml - r~ ! ~
~ f ~ : :>':, t l ~ >
. .-+ - t--- .-f - 1-
..J _ L..1 ~L,
.J_Ll_I~_
! I ! I
I -- r- ! - ,--
1"""'1
Q)
s::
~
~
~
o
~
......
~
~
~
cS
rn
Q)
~
~
:;:$
o
~
~
......
~
~
~
Q)
~
~
~
~
~
rn
......
~
~
o
s::
o
rn
......
~
~
~
8
o
o
I. . ..i
: I
'\ ",
\ !
r . .....l .....- r ... "'l ......
t-~-r-t--
\ I \
.....!\. L... ....!. _....
I ! \ I I
r -l 4r I -
t---i-\-t--
n!---l-l...:-J--
! I ! \1.
i ., .. :... .~.
.., .. .....t ...., .. ..' ...i.
f \,.
I
'1-
..." "i -
-..+ -
...,.1 _
!
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
-- '-'j
o
-q-
,......
ex:>
or-
LO
<'?
,......
ex:>
or-
...... ,..",.. ....1. ."".J,.,,,, _"'~. .....,,! .". <<.. ~ ,"., 1... ....'. ~,,,.,. "'~. .. ,j
.._' . "....... ..'. __. ......__ ....... i .. .. .1.... ......' ......
I I ! I!'
..... r-" T .......1..-' '1' ........1..... 'T' .....1 ".. r- ....- r' ....J ..... f- ! -
1- -+ -!- t --I - -t. -! - t- - t- -t - r -+ -
I I I. ~,l ! i I
~
t~ -1...._ i_ J ._!- .@-- .....! _..1..._ L
! II! II! I !
r-'''y -- T -!- t m_ r -'I .-- f
ft.. ..t.~" 1-- ."t --1-- + ,-..! ---t- --'1 -- t...
" -+ _... 1..-.. -t --1-- + --j .~.. .-1 ..- -1-.
! 1 I l I
1...._ ...1. ..,,,... t ""."'. ..:~." ..,.,,,! ..'.,. ..i o. ".,_..1 ....,.. i."",
J _ 1_ 1 _1_ 1 _1_ l.. _! __ L
! ! I I I I ! ! I
. -..t- .., 1-.'" -+ --I"""
~.l I__..l __1_
J ..1
1 !
- -r - r- T -"'I~
--! -...1 - +-
.._I _ J... _...1 _ L
!
I 1
'-1- r -'1~ r
..,..... . J.
.. "'r
.-t
.. .J. _... ...... ...L ...._ ___.. ._.. ....... .... ..... ..... L
I ! I [ 1 I I !
! ,- T -!- t -1- T -,- r
-t-I- i- ~I~ + -1-- r --I ~ t-
--!-.. 1-'+ -1-1-1- .!- --! - .l-
I . I ! I I, I I I I
! I
I..... ..t
..... ........ +..
......1... ..-.
.;.. ... \...- .....
.J
\:. :.... .:
t .". ~.
... .: '''' t'" "..".~ i...
~J~_ L ~~!_ L
! !
..... r
i'
.. I. . ..'. !....
.~~ !_. 1.. _,...! .,,_ L
! ! I !
T "--I ~..- r
tiJ
......
.....u. ....
d j
.L[)
IN
"C'J..- +
o LO 0
<'? N N
I'- I'- I'-
ex:> ex:> ex:>
(j"aal) UO!~e^aI3 a~ej.Jns Ja~eM
~O.;
_ L. ~J L.. ...1. __
I ! I I
.- f- '1 ,~ r '1' @...
-- t- ""1-- 1"1'-
-- ~- --t -- jm_ ,,-+ .....
! ! ! I
1
- t- "'1 ..-.. 1- l' -_..
- t.- --1 --. !-- --{ --
__ LJ L. w..l .....,
1
I
r'
.... t- ..-i-... I,,,, wt ~-
___ L ..J _ L..
! ! I
I! I
- r"l ~ r-- ".1 "w_
_ J._..
I.
I ! I
....,.. ."..... "."" .....". '.'A'.
I I ! I
-rl-rl-
- t--i ~ !-. -t ..-
- J- -t -- !.-4 -
I I I I
"..... t..'... ."...~
I ,
..-. .~.. ~."" .' "'0
"..., ,,'~,...
...... ;..... ......1 ..
I ! 1 I
__ ~ "',....J. _, t..."",_ """i,.
I I
- r- -"I ..-. r -1 -.-
I .
. . ..~ . ...
_L_i__L
-. f"'" '-l
,
r~~ _wT
l{)
T'-
1'-
ex:>
T'-
LI:
o
o
o
N
o
o
ex:>
or-
o
o
(0
'r"
o
o
~
or-
o
o
N
or-
i
(,)
-
0(1)
0C)
0'"
or-CU
.c
(,)
.~
C
o
o
ex:>
o
o
(0
o
o
-q-
o
o
N
o
o
'r"
I'-
ex:>
T'""
FEB 1 :1 ZOo.
r/)
~
,;,
~
,;,
u
~
U
~
o
e;:::1
l-<
<J)
>
o
~
<J)
<J)
l-<
U
"'0
~
('j
:2
r/)
~
/
r/)
<J)
0:;
l-<
<J)
~
('j
8:
/
c.D
C\l
00
.-;
.-;
~
~~H=L,;S;==
Ltsccle: 1
~e.:~I~eJ _ __
HAI-C- TP
T.QLK22X34
Q~~s~~~d= :
02270CONTOUR WB- DW
()
1;
Z
o
;=
U
I
I
ro
~
~
~
I
!
N
..
o
:::
~
z
~
Inc.)
/
V"V
,,~r>
F'
/
//
/
<). /
/~n
.'\..__ l
il'l
2023
~
~_d? <I
,..........,....-
...
0
0
N
~
0
:J
~
0
"-
a ~
>- "
CD
~ >--
'" 0 ...,
0 0 ~
0 ~
z
~
o
c
o
.~
-+o-l
CJ
;j
H
-+o-l
if)
C
o
u
on
~
. ,....q
~
~
. ,...q
;j
CO
H
o
~
cO
~
if)
cO
~
en
-+o-l
o
Z
.~
::,..... ,
~L
>.
H
cO
C
.~
8
.-,
.-
Q.)
H
~
z
o
f=
<(
u
o
-.J
z
o
I-
U
W
if)
I
if)
if)
o
a:::
C,)
s
o
-.J
LL
a:::
W
>
o
Incorporated
bT3ll5 'B'/ti808l:reretfcllc;tERdWl
I:aInp.Qslteilo1n fireM/i1l897035
Phone: (~el3) 65~-66r8
FAX (~el3) 65$-6586
Internet: WWW.Olak.COM
11826
Project No Drawing No
FIGURE 2
Sheet No,
L Ii
, .
..
17355 sw boones ferry road . lake oswego. oregon 97035-5217
(503) 635-3618 . fax (503) 635-5395
~HIBIT7cJ_)
NV/W.otdk.com
February 10, 2004
alnes
Street, Suite 222
, OR 97520
Re: Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03 - Otak Project No. 11826
Dear Mr. Haines:
At the conclusion of the meeting on January 22, 2004 held at the City of A.shland, City staff
requested that you hire an engineer to confirm that the location of the FEMA Floodway
boundary shown on the site plans prepared by Architectural Design Works, Inc. is correct.
This letter is intended to fulfill the City's request.
Floodway Boundary
As defined in the Flood Insurance Study for City of Ashland, Oregon, Jackson County,
published in 1980:
Regulatory Floodway-A floodplain lnanagelnent tool that is the regulatory area
defined as the channel of a strealn, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that 17Lust be
Ilept free of encroachlnent so that the base flood discharge can be conveyed without
increasing the BFEs lnore than a specified amount. The regulatory flood way is not
an insurance rating factor.
In simpler terms, the Floodway Boundary is a theoretical line that is determined using a
hydraulic model. The model is used to simulate the constriction of flow in the floodplain
until the resulting water surface is one foot higher than the water surface under an
unconstricted condition. A boundary line is drawn representing the constricted channel as
determined by the model. That boundary line represents the Floodway.
The Floodway boundary shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is a legal line
that has been adopted by FEMA. Adjustments to that line will only be approved by FEMA
if it can be demonstrated that better data is available that significantly changes what is
shown on the map. Better topographic data is one of the reasons that FEl\1A will consider
adjustments to the Flood Insurance Maps. However, map revisions are a significant
undertaking that would be cost prohibitive for a small site developer.
;< 6 -S-
rEa 1 3 l@rr~
,lIRCHITECTLH,F . ENGII\!EERING . I..ANDr:',Ci\PE 11.f~(:HITECTURE , PLANN!NG . SURVEYING & rYl/\PPING , URBt,N DESIGN
L:\Project\11800\11826\Admin\CORRESP\Haines021004LO I ,wpd
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03
Page 2
February 10, 2004
It is Otak's conclusion that the Floodway boundary line shown by the Architect on the
Attached Sheet A-I03(A) correctly identifies the FEMA Regulatory Floodway boundary.
Separate Encroachment Analysis
In lieu of revisions to the FEMA Regulatory Floodway, we offer a separate analysis to
demonstrate that encroachment of the proposed project onto floodplain corridor lands is
less than would result from a formal revision to the Flood Insurance Study.
According to the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Ashland Creek, the Floodway was
computed on the basis of the energy grade instead of the water surface elevation. A
maximum surcharge of 1.0 foot was allowed in the energy grade. The results of the
computations are tabulated in the FIS and show the floodway width at cross-section "P"
that was modeled at Lithia Way culvert had a width of 20 feet. The floodway width at
cross-section "Q" that was modeled at the Main Street culvert was 30 feet.
Our analysis is based on results derived from modifications to a previous HEC-RAS model
that was developed for the City as part of the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project"
(Otak, 1997). A channel cross~section was added to the REC-RAS model at the location of
the proposed Shasta Building site. The channel cross-section was based on survey data
collected for the Shasta Building project by Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. The attached
Figure 1 shows the location of the new cross-section relative to the other cross-sections in
the model.
Review of the survey data shows that the right bank of Ashland Creek at this location is
lower than the water surface elevation predicted by the REC-RAS model and that flood
flows would probably overflow the right bank and escape the main channel of Ashland
Creek. Since the REC- RAS model developed as part of the "Ashland Creek Flood
Restoration Project Report" (Otak, 1997) does not assume overflow to occur at this location
in Ashland Creek, the cross-sections input to the model are truncated on the right bank as
can be seen in Figure 2. The model assumes a vertical boundary at the truncated end of the
cross-section and therefore, conservatively over-predicts the water surface elevation in this
reach of Ashland Creek. Overflow at this location in Ashland Creek was probably not
simulated as part of the "Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project because the model was
intended to determine the potential impacts of the types of flows encountered during the
1996 flood. Much of the flow in Ashland Creek during the 1996 flood escaped the main
channel of the Creek upstream of the Winburn Way culvert. Further discussion and
analysis of the overflow condition in this part of Ashland Creek is documented in a
separate letter dated February 9, 2004 regarding "Estimated 100-year Water Surface
Elevation for Shasta Building '03."
~06
L: \Project\ 11800\ 11826\Admin \CO RRESP\Haines021004LO 1. wpd
ICr:R 1 3 ?004.
.,; ._u -
11'1
l.1.l
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03
Page 3
February lO, 2004
However, upon review, the previous HEC-RAS model is capable of providing a relative
comparison of water surface elevations under varying channel conditions in Ashland
Creek. Our analysis considered three different scenarios and modified the HEC-RAS model
to simulate three separate conditions. All scenarios were based upon the proposed Shasta
Building shown in the Attached Sheet A-107 and A-301.
Scenario One - Encroachment from the Left Bank
The edge of the proposed Shasta Building deck will extend to Station 70.2 feet as shown in
the Attached Figure 2. By modeling the building as a blocked obstruction, we have
conservatively exaggerated the impacts of the building since the proposed building will be
supported by pillars and not a wall or fill. The 100-year flow rate published in the Flood
Insurance Study for Ashland Creek of 2,259 cfs was assumed for this scenario since this
scenario is for comparison with the location of the FEMA Floodway boundary. Results of
this scenario are summarized in Table 1. They demonstrate that construction of the
proposed building is expected to have minimal influence on the 100-year water surface
elevation.
Table 1
Results of Scenario One - Encroachment from the Left Bank
FEMA lOO-year Flow
Variable (Condition) Q = 2,259cfs
Water Surface (Existing) 1,874.89
Water Surface (Scenario 1) 1,874.73
change -0.16
Energy Grade (Existing) 1,875.10
Energy Grade (Scenario 1) 1,875.06
change -0.04
~!J1
f
FEB 1 3 2004.
L:\Project\11800\11826\Admin\CORRESP\Haines021004LOl.wpd
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03
Page 4
February lO, 2004
Scenario Two - Encroachment from Both Sides
The model was modified to simulate a second scenario. The second scenario simulates
encroachment on the channel from both sides of the creek. Both encroachments are an
equal distanGe from the edge of the cross-section as shown in the attached Figure 3. The
encroachment distance is based upon the location of the proposed Shasta Building and
extends to Station 70.2 in the cross-section. The 100-year flow rate published in the Flood
Insurance Study for Ashland Creek of 2,259 cfs was assumed for this scenario since this
scenario is for comparison with the location of the FEMA Floodway boundary. Results of
this scenario are summarized in Table 2. They demonstrate that the encroachment
assumed in this scenario is less than would result from a formal revision to the Flood
Insurance Study.
Table 2
Results of Scenario Two - Encroachment from the Both Sides
FEMA lOO-year Flow
Variable (Condition) Q = 2,259 cfs
Water Surface (Existing) 1,874.89
Water Surface (Scenario 2) 1,874.04
change -0.85
Energy Grade (Existing) 1,875.10
Energy Grade (Scenario 2) 1,875.25
change 0.15
Scenario Three -- Encroachment Under Future "No Obstructions" Condition
The third scenario that we modeled demonstrates the effects of encroachment on a future
condition in Ashland Creek when obstructions to flow are removed. As part of the
"Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project"(Otak, 1997) the REC-RAS model developed for
the project was modified to simulate a "No Structures" condition in Ashland Creek in
which all of the major obstructions to flow were removed from the simulation.
Encroachment evaluated in Scenario Two was applied to the "No Structures" stream
condition, as shown in Figure 4, to demonstrate that the energy grade line would not
increase by more than one foot. The lOO-year flow rate published in the "Ashland Creek
Flood Restoration Project Report" (Otak, 1997) of 3,100 cfs was assumed for this scenario
since this scenario is not for comparison with the FEMA Floodway boundary. Instead, this
scenario is information requested by the City engineer as evidence that the proposed
Shasta Building is not expected to become an obstruction to flow under a future condition
;j f) " lC '1 8
L:\Project\11800\ 11826\Admin \CORRESP\Haines021004LO 1. wpd . ~
III
l.1.1
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03
Page 5
February 10, 2004
in which other obstructions to flow have been removed. Results of this scenario are
summarized in Table 3. They demonstrate that the simulated encroachnlent results in a
minor change to the energy grade line.
Table 3
Results of Scenario Three - Encroachment Under Future "No Obstructions"
Ashland 1 DO-year Flow
Variable (Condition) Q = 3,100 cfs
Water Surface (Existing) 1874.31
Water Surface (Scenario 3) 1873.15
change -1.16
Energy Grade (Existing) 1,874.79
Energy Grade (Scenario 3) 1,874.75
change -0.04
Proposed Shasta Building '03
The existing site is covered by several tiers of wood decking that extend out into the
Floodway of Ashland Creek. The proposed project includes several elements that are
expected to improve flood conditions on Ashland Creek.
The existing decks will be removed.
The proposed building and associated deck will be supported by pillars that have
minimal influence on the water surface elevation in Ashland Creek.
The pillars that support the proposed building are located at least 10 feet from the
Floodway.
The additional setback from the creek will allow for planting a riparian area along
the left bank of Ashland Creek.
The project also proposes to enhance the riparian area of Ashland Creek on the
opposite bank.
Conclusions
Topographic data provided by the City of Ashland and the Floodplain boundary published
on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Ashland Creek both suggest that the
floodplain of Ashland Creek is not equally proportioned on both sides of the Creek.
Aor
Ie' I=' R 13 Jon!
.!'__':-I -' _ \l
L:'\Project'\11800\ 11826'\Admin \CORRESP\Haines021004LO l.wpd
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Floodway Boundary for Shasta Building '03
Page 6
February 10, 2004
The Floodway Boundary shown on the project site plans match the legal boundary
published by FEl\1A. Additionally, the analysis presented in this letter demonstrate that
development of the Shasta Building property is not expected to result in an increase in the
IOO-year water surface of Ashland Creek. Our analysis also demonstrates that equal
encroachment from both sides of the channel is not expected to increase the energy grade
by more than one-foot.
Several project elements are expected to improve flood conditions as well as the ecological
functions of Ashland Creek.
The analysis presented in this letter is limited to this project and conclusions about specific
flood corridor development on the opposite side of the creek should be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis.
If there are additional questions or concerns regarding the information presented in this
letter, please call :Kevin Timmins at (503) 699-4577.
Sincerely,
;;:;~
R. Gregg Weston, PE
Principal
KT:RGW:bld
c: Craig Stone
~ III
David Richardson, Architectural Design Works
Enclosures
JIO
V'i. ~..~
u ,.)
L:\Project\11BOO\11B26'v\dmin \CORRESP\Haines021004LO l.wpd
11'1
l.1.1
)>
III
n
a
m
..a.
v
-f-
~
\\
\
\
..a.
N
w
;OJr
,.
UI
en
~
:IE )>
~ n
~ a
::;: "" 8 0 m
:; rn m w 8 0 ~
:I: == ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~:o~ 0 )>
i at m . ;0 fA ~..,. arP'" CD
::r m ~ "" o Gl :I: i~~jl.~J Ul a
1:= -I r- ~ ~ . c:;
i' ~r: 0 ....~:!l fA ~ "X "X i - -.::r
!!!- 0 0 t ;! ~~ *8 co -.
1J A. III 0 ..Ii. c! :z ~ :I: ~g~ i
0 %5- Co) C ~ ~ ~.<> ~ ::;:~::I~ ~ ::l CD
so ;0 ~ m .. "'..., (')
l> ~e; 0 ! 0 H~ !' C ~ ~ ~~
j; 0 m ~ ;:
l\r~ lD :::I W U> ~ 0 5;
,,10 "" ~ 8~ffi lCJ
f T'\l c5 ~ ~ z ~ ~~
c.I 0
CO~ co a !.IJ
f=='-~ 0
Co) 5'
~~ (')
I '.....)1J
C:J s:
c:::>
~
I'll
CD
()
c:
tit)
WlIJ
tf-
~5
<~
~<
~<
~~
~~
::tllJ
u:><:
Ci:s,1
cZ
~~
M
~
"
Z g ~h
a en
..I ! w
~ e:r
:; ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ -~
c ~ ~J"6
5 "'
~ :c ii
fn ~
0
Q U
<l::
~~
i~
~
..~
u~
i~
en
C6~ ~
5 0 E
..... 3: ~ ~
() ... ~~:sl:t
Q) c: ~ ~"""'t
:=: C> ial~ ~~i
..c..- :o~~
() en Si:g:g"
~ Q) S!~~~H
<( Cl _"-~l-U-W
1&1
../
11;
~
t ~
[8' i
.., ~ 9
u
Ii~
~5
z~
III i~
U
f~ tt
~i ii ~
~i! ....
"1"1 ci
~ I~ z
..
~
~t
..It
i;
.
"
i
ui
III
u:
Ill,
~ilillUI NIWIIII
<I:
<I:
- -------------------,
'! R R R
',' H
I I
I I
... it
z "
~ i51
~ ri!'!
t; ii~
II "i~
!II: !5!~
~~!~
~
:g
~:
N
....
'"
=>
gz
uO
zi=
W:5
"'=>
~~
$"
~~
t<:t
gg
8;;
~~
l
...
III
>
III
...
I-
III
&II
~
l-
f/)
Z
Ci
~
...
Ci
I-
&II ~
~ ~
0 z
0 c
...
... Do
~
L&. 0
0
...
u.
Z N
...
C III
>
:s III
...
(f)
i i i ~ji
9 nil
~ ~i5~~
" C~cc
z Bfil~~
9 ggg~
:; w~ffiffi
III 8~8~
I ~ rrgliffi
... ~~~~
e g~~~
~
o
o
...
u.
~
III
~
o
...
IJI
lXI:
~~~;;~.+;; _____ ________ _-'___ _ _ _ _ ___ __~ ~;;;;~ _~~;; ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~..:..: ":_'~ _ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- _ -- _ --- -- _..: _ _ -- _ _ _ _ _ ---
1&1
t
~
1.
N
z'"
!!~
u~
~~
F====~===
I ,I
I
1
<1:'
Q
u
"<:;J
Cl
c:l
~ ("-.../
~ C"";l
~
~
~ ~!
en
"" 0) ~ o::J
0:: C I'? t u,J
~ t-- P ~"L.
z II. mill it
Cl
~ ~ 0 0 C GI 1:
_c
,,- ;;:
'" g ~ en ~ .... :;:! ;;
Cl Z c
:: ~ r= ~ c Ill" ~
C 11>-
~ ..0
~ ~ 50 A- t- =:. '"
:;
Li: ~ '" ~ llI: 1&1 .c ~
~ l- ~ <( 0 1&1 In
~ u :z: -g
a 8 0 fn
3 ~ ..I ~
Cl g: 0 II.
C ~
~
~
~
CD
1.1.1
t;j t;j
E ~
~ G
~ ~
c;; u:
m
f/)
I-
Z
III
~
~
~ C
Do
0 C
0 Z
... j
U. Do ..,
~
0
0
~ ...
!: U.
0 III C")
... ...
III A.
III III
u.
0 A. >
0 III
II: ::) ...
(f)
ocr
ll):
------
- ----------
u
<t '
I-
Z
~
:)
C
l-
f/)
III
~
Z
j
Do
~
o
o
...
u.
....
...
III
> \
III f
... /
I I '-.(. I
I I-~
\ : Ii: """'~__
Cf)( Ui I! --
....N I.... , \, i ", _.:-~:.__, --_ i I 1,1 I
\ I I,:, ......1' ~-~-~ -----f- L I L I; \
· \ \ I I 't"" J--------,--- -~-~~j.. --::-,., ---j=-T-:2:=J -.....
\ \~I; , ~/- I ....--------',.---- --_l_-=-~__--~==~~L"..) I
',\ -:> - ;~_-.:-=-_.:----= ..~--
)' \ "'~~ ~-~~, /
\ - ~-~- '. "
\ ....-"'. I
- \...--,-_/ /
======== ;/
w'
m
:.::
III
III
11:...
U..I
caa!
Z"
:5..
ZII:
~~
...
III
>
III
...
...
...
D:
o
ofS
~
C
m
~
III
W
~ C")
U
Q
Z
j
% ~
f/) tu
C ~
en
~
Z ~
~ ~
~ ~~
o c>-
o ~~
... ~ en
U. l-~
8~
id ~I~
> ~ft:
III
...
o N
Z
j:
!!5'
t1~
a=
o
o
...
u.
- ----
m
::)
U)
(f)
....
c
L~\l
~
~
~
1
~
if
5'
~
~
"-"'f', ~
rT",\ ~
ro~
~~
~
~:::
~
<0
~
..a.
N
:a.
w
,.
tn
m
(')
-I
o
Z
~
::;
n
:z:
m
Z
II
~S
~~
~:II
S';!;!!
ZO
-to
,:II
a
i
i
Q
en
II
C
i=
a
i
Q
tn
m
(')
-I
is
z
tn
en
:a.
en
:z:
en m
~ m
C= -I
~;
Alii 0
:z: 5. co
!.iii:
l!i ~
o
w 0
co
III
C
;:
a
i
Q
en
III
n
-I
(5
Z
en
~ 8
~ ~
(") Gi
;!; :!i
~
c!
~
!i!
~
::;;
o
~
J>
.
W
o
...Ii.
IT1
~
:II
~
'":, ~
'":, r-
..en
..m
a
o
:z.,
a"
Iii"...,
:i '":,
r- ...,
11'-"-
~Ii
~g:
~
J 12"-0"
o
'"
'"
n
m
en
m
n
o
z
a
r-
m
:i
r-
~;!;~
~g:
<
J
II
-t
:z:
i
r-
m
<
m
r-
(')
tn
m
(')
-4
o
Z
D
D
1]
~
,.",'<'<
~;~~~
(')
m i!~!i
';c _~."
~::;;
Iii~;!!
:i!i8
r-en:ll
", ',<.>,:"~
I'
;~~1
~,>.,
i~i
.~JC
:.~~
'am
I~
.t.:8
~<: :II
,.r: =
{!~
;.t.,
'f'Z
.,,~,:,: ~
>,:,': :I
..,
.iq
~ :!!=6
Gl =~~
r-~:II
mS';!'"
:izS
r-:,~
~~~
O,.z
~i=;!!
r- 0
m 0
< :II
m
r-
D
12'-0"
g~ I
1.-.. j
II
(')
~ ~
~ ~
m Gl
-< ."
f;
i
?;l
~ ~ ~ ~
N f
8 (")
~
C/l
;;j
~
~
C/l
m
....
....~~
~~:E
~o.>
-i' nl.
~ ~.
.0 ;ill
8~9
5
~
'"
~
l:
E
J'
o
ill
I
a
I
i t
~ 'I
I /1
LJiI
,I
, I
/ I
: I
: I
, I
~~
~:o.1
~~
?<~
i
g:
3'_(,'
~1
;'
12
I ~
10
I
I
I
I
~~ I~
~~ I-~
~~ I 8
,-~ I ,-
I!
tn
m
(')
-4
o
Z
~I~
~?l
(jIg:
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
~
."
i
Gl
c
z
o
m
'"
o
~
~
~
i
z
Gl
,-
S
en
:z:
~
en
;!
III
C
;:
CI
i
G)
o
Co)
en
~
~
~
~
m
i
."
en
m
n
o
z
a
~
r-
o
'"
'"
n
m
en
m
n
o
z
a
r-
m
:i
r-
~!
'-0
~~
zo
o~
~o
~~
oC/l
~o
>z
:;~
~~
~~
~~
-i-l
,.,..,~..,,- CJ "too...
~~r?!' 0 ~
F.'::';"g~uo (I) ,
-~~~f~ (/) 0
~.::,;.~. ~ -. :J
tii.i;;:i <0 =+
i I b~ ~lD ::J (I)
~ ~~~ l 0
S;GI<<G~ <- ~
a 0 <c
n 0,
~ ' Q
^-
(/)
..a.
N
w
-t
:z:
~
~
r-
~~
,.
3t_,-
en
en
m
l.1.1
lr>l
UMOJO UD!S~O
~~~~~
U ~~~~~O'"
~ ~o(Qm .
co en ~ ~
~ ~a~8=
e- c8 ~e~
8 ~ ~ ~
c: 0" QJ
~ ~~j~~
:::..5c..~E
SNOll\1JOl
NOllJ3S-SS0~jJ l300~ S\I(j-J3H
SlN3r'ir'iO::J NOISI^3l:1
80,
~u~Pl~nH
B1sBQS
A8
31'''0 'ON
uO~10n.I1suoJ .IOj 10 N
A.IBU~W~Id.Id
\.
==
~
ce
Do.
a
~
i
w
::;)
-'
m
o
VllfJ
:::::::l.......
\ DO'
>Vl
wZ
~D
(l~
LLU
D~
Zl
\i~~~
G.......
-1::L
'w <I"<"a
li'!;'<"a ~ ~g }~
~~ <I
"25VlO
X<I~
~~~\
(lwZ
<II <I
=~
~II!
l!i~
~~
_0
uu
';:\\~:f::
t.:~
II:
~~
11.0
III...
11.11I
_ID
<I-
:Cz
~~
Z:l
~~
~::!
~~
t~ w
2=~
Vl
Dr
f--1
<I
OZ
ill w<I
o
?ci OVl
<Ii
Mf-
MCl:
MD
I ~~
i; w
~ J ~:1
~ , Vl Clc:
~~... . ~~
z:E1II . ~w
-~~--- UI
~ t ~ "'~'1-: )
3i;~
ID06Ul
t U;
A11~
/
;;."7::=:F;'::-==~':=-::'=-=-~-=:'-' . ~~r':-.'
t~
~
g
$
.9~.rt~1
3.9~,CI.09N
..~
ill,',;
a-'
z::!
S~
~o&
ce~
"ce 'lit
zm
-lll: I-
I-w
!!~ 0
~ ~u -'
l
l
I...
, ~;~;,:
("'<z,.
':~f(
\
ft
~~'\/
~u /
Oel,
~~'
/ / u..... ..,
/ ~ '
.\,
. '~\
> '\
,
"
Q
Q
~en
ace
Ww
I-~
cece
Za
!:!o
eno
w-'
aU.
ce~
:E:i
~>
\
\
\
~ S
en ch"
,. ,."
<r ~~
II I :J ,
0 0'
" ~ I "" , ~ .
~:: I ,
I , III ,
""" I , I
"'-" I 'f I
~1I I ~ ]
xII I I
51--
.fw
gcr.:
LO~=:>O
~1jC)z
:=flL.1
(/)
-
t-"
kM'~
t-
W
W
~
I-
en
Z
<I:
:!E
~MO'NOI1::J3SX-\>' lS\>'HS\SlI8IHX3\~MO\ 9ZBIl \OOB II \n3rOl:ld\ "1 < - - wdlZ 'z vo/ll/w lNI^3~ '1
1878 t
j
1876j
1874-!
I
I
1
I
1872~
€ 1870
5
~
CIl
W 1868
1866-
j
I
1864j
I
I
1862)
i
i
I
i
18601 ---,~--r----.T ,
0 20
Ashland Creek
Plan: 1) Shasta Exist 2/10/2004 2) Encrch 1 side 2/9/2004
RS = 91.333
>1<. - .03~-----------+--- .018----1
.018
40
60
100
120
80
Station (It)
Figure 2
Encroachment from left bank modeled in Scenario 1
:L16'
, II
L:\Project\11800\ 11826\Admin\CORRESP\Haines021004LOL wpd
~_____._L!gen~ ~-~--..~]
, EG FEMA 100~r . Shasta Exist I
~G FEMA 100yr. Encrch lside I
I
WS FEMA 100yr - Shasta Exist I
WS FEMA 100~ - Encrch lSidel1
Ground
.
Bank Sta J
--- ------.-
140
iC'r: R 1 3 2004.
., ,_U
1878 r .018
1876
18741
I
18721
I
I
I
g 1870~
!
8 !
;
Gl I
W 1868~
I
j
1866
1864i
1862.
I
1860 i~ -~ , ,
0 20 40
Ashland Creek Plan: Shasta Existing Conditions 2/10/2004
RS = 91.333
+
.03---~-------4-- .018-----1
-...
,
60
~-.,......---------.--.-----,---.-
80 100
120
Station (ft)
Figure 3
Encroachment from both sides modeled in Scenario 2
L:\Project\11BOO\11826\Admin \CORRESP\Haines021004LO l.wpd
:; Ib
L I :
legend
EG FEMA Encroach
-----
EG FEMA 100yr
WS FEMA 100yr
WS FEMA Encroach
l; ~~
.
Bank Sta
~=r~~~m~~~_ ,
140
lC'FR it),.,.
I '-"--' .~ -j LD04
167B~-
187.j ~
Ashland Creek Plan: Shasta Bldg Remove Obstructions 2/9/2004
RS = 91333
.018 +----~--------- .03--- ------------t---- 018--------1
F~=ieg:e~:~==i
I EG 100 year
. I
EG Encroachment I
I
WS 100 year
WS Encroachment
Gro.und
.
Bank SIa
1874
Encroachment
1872
i
g 18701
6 I
~
CIl 1~81
w
l~j
I
18641
1862 j
1860+----~~ ~._-..--.~
0 20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Station (ft)
Figure 4
Encroachment from both sides under future "No Obstructions" condition modeled in Scenario 3
~/1
L:\Project\IIBOO\ IlB26\Admin \CORRESP\Haines021004LO I. wpd
FEB 1 3 2004
ill
" '.
'l
.,f/lfv\N.otak.com
November 12, 2003
Revised February II, 2004
alnes
Street, Suite 222
, OR 97520
Re: Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03
Otak Project No. 11826
Dear Mr. Haines:
Otak has reviewed revisions to the site plans provided by Architectural Design Works, Inc.,
as shown in the attachments. This letter is an update to the Flood Hazard Assessment
letter dated November 12, 2003. We have updated the letter to reflect changes to the site
plans that have occurred since November in response to review comments provided by the
City of Ashland.
It remains 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 that the Shasta Building is designed in such a way as to minimize inlpacts to Ashland
Creek during flood conditions.
Ashland Creek
According to the "Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation" (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 iOf the subject
project. This condition will continue during flood flows until such time as the culvert is
removed or replaced with a larger culvert. Mter such time as the culvert is removed or
replaced, the water surface elevation upstream of the existing culvert and adjacent to the
subject property would be reduced during flood flows.
Flood Hazard Elevations
The City of Ashland participates in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
National Flood Insurance Program. Ashland Creek is part of that prograrn 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 proposed building is not located in the
JZ/r
I\RCH1TECTURE . ENGINEERING . L1l.NDSCAPE {\RCHrTECTURE . PLANN'NG . S\HIVEYING & ~lAPPING . URBAN D"'17 _. \i"'~
L:\Project\llBOO\ 11826"Admin \CORRESP\Haines021104LO l.wpd _ , r:.. 0
1 3 2004
, '
.
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Flood Hazard AsseSSlnent for Shasta Building '03
Page 2
Novelnber 12, 2003
Revised February 11, 2004
Floodway and the plans show the building more than 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 City of Ashland
maintains a separate flood hazard zone based on observations made during past flood
events. The City of Ashland BFE at the location of this 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
building. The new building will be supported by concrete pillars to minimize disturbance to
flow and to allow flood water access to the underfloor space. As shown in the attached
Drawing A-3D! the Lower Floor, Main Floor, and Upper Floor will all be entirely above
both the FEMA BFE and the City 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
Attached Drawings A-106 and A-3D1 show the finished ground contours and profile relative
to the existing ground contours and profile. The volume of fill associated with this project
that will be located below the Base Flood Elevations is equal to the volume of concrete
needed to construct the pillars, the elevator foundation walls, and walls along the Main
Street and Lithia Way sides of the building. Calculation of the estimated volume is
summarized in Table 1.
A I
e<.,~1
fEB 1 3 2004
L:\Project\11800\11826\Admin\CORRESP\Haines021104LO l.wpd
11'1
L I i
II
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03
Page 3
November 12, 2003
Revised February 11, 2004
Table 1
Estimated volume of fill below the Base Flood Elevation resulting from this project
Volume Below VolumeBelow
FEMA BFE Ashland BFE
Fill Material Assumed Dimensions (ft3 ) (ft3)
Concrete Pillars 18 inches square 101 345
Elevator 9'X6' 270 459
Foundation
Retaining Walls Along existing Ashland Creek Bar & 50 607
Grill, along Main Street, and along
Lithia Way
Side access hall to 20'X6' N/A 240
Ashland Creek
Bar & Grill
Fill behind wall 40' X 4' X 2' N/A 320
along Main Street
TOTAL 421 1,971
Estimated Flood Storage Mitigation
The proposed project includes removal measures to balance (and over-cornpensate 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. An unknown 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
Volume Volume Below
Removal Below FEMA Ashland BFE
Material Assumed Dimensions BFE (ft3) (fe)
Soil exca va tion Excavation estimate using average end
for underfloor area method based on excavation areas
craw 1 space shown in the sections on sheet A-30l.
Section A shows 31 ft3/ft below the FEMA 341 528
BFE and 48 fe/ft below the Ashland BFE
for 11 feet of stream bank.
Section B shows 34 ft3/ft below the FEMA 714 4,095
BFE and 195 ft3/ft below the Ashland BFE
for 21 feet of stream bank.
Section C shows 138 fe/ft below the FEMA 1,518 3,454
BFE and 3149 ft3/ft below the Ashland BFE
for 11 feet of stream bank.
TOTAL 1 2,573 I 8,077
1800\ 11826'v\dmin \CORRESP\Haines021104LO I. d A~6 t(B 1
3 2004
L:\Project\l
wp
. .
.;
Mr. Lloyd Haines
Flood Hazard AsseSSlnent for Shasta Building '03
Page 4
November 12, 2003
Revised February 11, 2004
Conclusion
This project allows for increased channel conveyance if other restrictions to flow in the
vicinity 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, the project has been designed to allow the automatic entry and exit of
flood~waters between Ashland Creek and the buildings crawl space. All of the new building
will be located above the Base Flood Elevation.
If there are additional questions or concerns regarding the site design relative to the flood
functions of Ashland Creek, please call Kevin Timmins at (503) 699-4577.
Sincerely,
Otak, Incorporated
~%~
R. Gregg Weston, PE
Principal
KT:RGW:bld
c: Craig Stone
, ,,"':;'ta
David Richardson
Enclosures
~~(
fEB 1 3 2004
L:\Project\11800\ 11826\Admin \CORRESP\Haines021104LO l.wpd
ill
1 :
3:
5:
L1l
Exhibit 8
f
:.-. ~
.~-.: ...1
.,.'w:.. ..
.... . .,,' .~ )1!
.. . ..".~ ~
'<\i.~.; ".~
2:
4:
I
I
I.
I
I!;:'~
II: ~
I '.~:i.. ~~ ,.
~~~;.~:'
60'~:~::7~'>~
I
!
!
--~
~
!
i
4
'I' ;~'\i
i "'~I
f.,' ~:' j
i
.~
---.-..----.-- -...----- -~_..__--.:.....:~-~~_._':.~_..:::. _~I
E):
Lloyd Haines - 88 North Main Street LLC.
:( :l;1-.
[)Ee 1 2 2003
7:
-----..j
i
I
I
!_.....-.---.. .
!
i
----. ~.~
~"'::.-~~]
.~
'..: ,,'. "I
...__."..._...~~ !
9:
Exhibit e
--------.----------.--..-------------------
8:
10:
Lloyd Haines - 88 North Main Street LLC.
~ ~:l
~ ~ \,:)
III
DEe 1 2 2003
:\
\
~
\
~
/\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ /
\ / /\
Y "
/ ..///
/ ..//
/~\ ,/
~ \ / /\ 9 11
\ \///\\
\ \ /
\\ V/ I
/ /
\ Y /
\ / /
~ /
/
'\ /
~ //
'\ /
~ //
" /
~ //
'\ /
/
I
I
/
I
I
/
/
~
\ /
",j
/~
/ \
//
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
// I
// /
D. Tax Lots
/\/ Urban Growth Boundary
:Streams & Ditches
^/ Streams
Ditches
. Station Point and
Photograph Number
1.,1.1
f~
/
I
I
1----
I
/
I
/
/
/~,
"" I X
~ ~
~I
~,
.~
/~
/ ~
/ I'~
/ LJ V
I LJ
< I
\ I
\
\\
\
\
,
\
\
\,
\,
\
Exhibit 8
Source: Jackson County GIS Services
Photograph Key Map
~
N
Lloyd Haines
December 10, 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, Oregon
40
,
80
120 Feet
,
o
40
~~~.
DEe 1 2 2003
f
W.l'iL.
39 1E 9BB
& INDEX
ASHLAND
CAtmUD NO:S
<<l
lID
-
....
lIIll
...
"'"
I'llE
....
llIl
IIDl
IIlO
SUI
8IOl
lID
m
llllIO
lilt
lIIlIl
IIIl
IIU
-L ~~X.
r~~
DIll
11m
-
IllI>
DIll
:mmlll_
4IIIJ lUIUI 'ItI ..
m
!:3
~
~
(~
I
APPROX. I
1/1f; r.nl?
39 1E 9BB
& INDEX
ASHLAND
IXlR lDlV!lU.!!iX m ;&I!
I ~~ROX.
~COR.
SEE hCAP ~ JE WlC
Exhibit 9
~
N
D Tax Lots
Assessor Map
Source: Jackson County GIS Services
Lloyd Haines
December 10, 2003
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Medford, Oregon
Not to Scale
;(' :( :r
IOEe 1 2 2003
11'1
I., II
f
t:
.!
~
~
~XH_!BIT lO J
'RRt:,
DEe 1 2 ?On1
I c!.'
: r II~
.1 I I:
:i i J.
'I I.
lid
: Ii i~1
I > JI'a .
l~". I~,
nJI,.
: 8.11..
i ~ ~ j'
i~U2
II ii~
I~.
j bA
j Ifl
! iI.
fI.)
~
.~
a-
ct
~
=
=
=
=
c
"-Z
0-(
>-..J
:!:
UrJ)
'<<
""""
u
.-
a-
...,
l:I':l
.~
Q
y
......
s-
o
.....
(Ii
::
"'v_~..'
./ .~.'7di.(~,iF@f2.,..
. --- ....,; -. ; ,,~.. :~--..':'~.... ..... .
. .i
~ . j .;i .
.,'
, #,..:, .,
/."'. . u n:-Ii r'"
':.: -?:':".t"f
. . " . ~
){ .,:. ...
:111 .' .'.'
'..:.......1. ::n"':~~""".',___~_,
. ".';~I ::.~._- ',...,: --~- : . .
." , ',' ':'~. ~.
0C-
t
: ",
a~
I
I
11'1
L 1.1
-
'"
.. . ':," :... .'--'.; ." :'~ :.
:.r.,
:N&rthJiw/!#Jtl:::ff}}f:t~Z:::;~kS~ ..
':;"."':.': '.
. .0;:..4,
. .,.~: '.: - ;,
....~..
...
. .
:":.;~t~.~ ~~ ~i~:~'~:.>.~~- t~~
:: ;
. f.
-I.
f
L~ .
~Rg
DEe 1 2 2003
. SEP - ro - 2003 05: 43 FROM: TOM r1YERS
5414884126
TO: ~1 482 9334
P.001
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
AshlandlOR 97520
Phone 541-482-3eG7
~,'..E'~.-P.'~'.'~.::~T~.. :JL]
\. . B"~~. ~J t~ f'~;;:' ~:f
'""~.'..l;;,'1-';w"'--I~"'7.~"i.~~llIo.S:.;~.1JCr'..~
September 3. 2003
Lloyd HanOI
82 N. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
Tree Protection Plan for 88 N. Main
The Alder at ae North Main is in good ovetall health. The enclosed field notes
document its current condition. Any construction within Its dripline, (20 feet from the
trunk) will heve a detrimental impact to its long-term health. Alders are particularly
susceptib~ to root damaging fungus. The ~ng 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 wll be compromised. If construciion is to
occur closer than tv.eenty feet from the trunk. It' is very unUkely that the Alder would
survive. The Alder's roots 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 ArmiYaria root rot is
prevalent in our area it is likely that any conslflJction on this lot will introduce the
fungus into the root system of the alder, If thi$ happens it wi" lead to the inevitable
dectine and death of the Alder. I have enclosed specifications for construction
around trees, If you have any further questions please call me at 482-3667.
Slnce~
I~j/h.~v;r--
iom Myers Certified Art:lorlst DBA Upper UIl1b--it
I
./( ~Cj
DEe 1 2 2003
11'1
1..1.1
SitelAdd18ss:
MapIlocation:
Owner: p~ private V- unknoWn
011I: 'I!! 9 fA?' IrlspoQor. :::)0.,... ~~
DatI of laSt inspection:
__ '~t:~\~ rv~k7 _ /'_' /'.
l__~ A PhotographIC GUide to the Evaluaf( .. jOf Hazard 1tees In Urban Areas
\1P TREE HAZA.R RDD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition
:.rOt" Ufl~J'~ ~~~~
'8 ~ ~. f'Il ~ ( "'- HAZARD MnNG: '
other
-+-+-=
Failure + Size + Target ..
Potential of part RatiJIg
_ immediate action needed
_ Needs further inspection
_ Dead tree
Hazard
Rating
TREE CHARACTERISTICS
Tree t: Species: ~~, 6.e"
DIH: ~ 'If InInkr. \ Height: . e;JY Spread: 4t> '
Fonn: 'd/~eneraJly symmetric 0 minor asymmetry 0 major asymmetry 0 stump sprout 0 stag-headed
Crown c~ "f( dominant 0 co-dominant [J intermediate 0 suppressed
LMfCrOWn ratio: % Age class: 0 young 0 semi-mature r11l1ature 0 over-mature/senescent
/ -
Pruning history: ~wn cleaned 0 excessively thinned 0 topped 0 crown raised 0 pollarded 0 crown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabledlbraced
o none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
Speclal Value: 0 specimen 0 heritage/historic C wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 63"SCreen ~de 0 indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency
TREE HEALTH
Folllge color: ~rmal 0 chlorotic 0 necrotic 'iEplconniCS? V @
Foliage density: I141iOrmal 0 sparse leaf size: 0 nonnal C small
Anlual shoot growth: 0 excellent 0 average C poor Twig Dieback? V N
Woundwood development: 0 excellent ~rage 0 PQor 0 none
Vigor class: 0 excellent ldiVerage 0 fair = ppor
Maior pests/diseases:
GrawIb obstructions:
o stakes 0 wirellies 0 signs 0 cables
o curb/pavement 0 guards
o other
SITE CONDlnONS
Site Character: C residence ~mercial = industrial = par1c 0 open space 0 natural 0 woodland\forest
Landscape type: 0 parkway :: raised bed = con~mer CJ mound 0 lawn C shrub border 0 wind break
Irrigation: 0 none ~Quate 0 inadequate j excessive .:.: trunk wettled
Recent site disturbance? Y N 0 construction = soil disturbance C grade change iJ line cleanng 0 Site cleanng
% dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-1000/0 Pavement lifted? V N
% dripline wi fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75010 75-100%
% IIrjpline grade lowered: 0% 10-25%' 25-50% 50-75% 75-1000/0
Soli problems: 0 drainage 0 shallow 0 compacted C droughty 0 saline 0 alka~ne 0 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail
o clay 0 expansive 0 slope _ 0 aspect:
Obstructions: 0 lights 0 signage 0 line-or-sight 0 view 0 overhead lines 0 underground utilities 0 traffic 0 adjacent veg. 0
EJposure to wind: &SIngle tree 0 below canopy 0 above canopy 0 recently exposed 0 windward, canopy edge 0 area prone to windthrow
Prevailing wind direction: j..) u.J . Occurrence of snowlice storms 0 never 91eldom 0 regularty
TARGET
Use Under Tree: 0 building 0 parking 0 traffic rtfi)efIestrian 6?7ecreation 0 landscape 0 hardscape 0 smaU features 0 utUity ~nes
Can target be moved? vc$J Can use be restrictad? V 6i'
Occupancy: 0 occasional use ~rmlttent use 0 frequent use 0 constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility lor conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form.
Specimen: TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM, Page 1
~~b
[lEG 1 2 Z003
I
I
i
I
I
I
~
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS:
Suspect root rot.: Y lfO Mahroom/l:onklbracket present Y N 10:
Exposed lOOts: 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low Ulldermined: 0 severe 0 moderate n low
Root pruaad: _ distance from trunk Root 118. atlecbld: _ % lutIJIa woundld: Y N Wbln:
Restricted root arl.: 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low Polefttlallor 100I failure: 0 severe 0 moderate 6HoW
LEAN: deg. from vertical 0 natural 0 unnatural 0 self-corrected Soli _vi...: Y ($I
Decay In plane of lean: Y I@ Roots Imtken Y cd) Soli crIIiI.l: Y cJJ)
Compoundi.g factors: - Lull stVIrfty; 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low
CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = $eVer!, m = moderate, , = low)
DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweeD
Codominantslfort<s .s
Multiple attachments W\.
Included bark 'hA
Excessive end weight
CrackslSDlits
HanDers
Girdlino
Wounds/seam
Decay
Cavity L
Conkslmushroomslbracket
BleedinDlsao Ilow
Loose/cracked bark
Nesting holelbee hive
Deadwood/stubs 1-
Borersltermiteslants
Cankerslaalls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail: JSfOML-v..
Inspection period: annual _ biannual _ other 6~r ~
Failure Potential + Size of Part + larget Rating = Hazard Rating
l + ---L_ + z- :. If-
HAZARD ABATEMENT
~;Iure potential: 1. low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 . severe
SIZe of part: 1. <6"' (15 em); 2 - 6-18'" (15-45 em);
. 3 - 18-30" (45-75 em); 4 - >30'" (75 em)
Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use;
3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use
Prune: 0 remove def~ part 0 reduce end weigltt 0 crown clean 0 thin 0 raise canopy 0 crown reduce
Cable/Brace: C'~ blt (cJolM.ll~ l Sc~~rold s J-e> red:.c, rll.!i.c- 0 restructure 0 shape
Inspect further. 0 root crown 0 decay 0 aerial 0 monitor
R!move tree: Y N Replace? Y N Nontarget Y N n...
uwer.
Eftect on adjacent tnes: 0 none 0 evaluate
NatIflcation: 0 owner (] manager 0 governing agency . Date:
COMMENTS
Tk
~ldeV'1 .t:> \..., ~ 000'....\( k\M-... bu ~ ,..." \ l b~
v-d. ~,~ ~U'""~ ~'~ J-l.c.. .Ii'l"o~ \ c I _ \.
+~ ~ . ~ ( ,. ~~"eQ, O'^5~~~a........ ~~
ldt.d... ,.:~ cv l+. '^1 ""-'fu."".{ \:.. o-r C~..f hv'-.\-, ~ yV1 U ~D!.~
. () ~ ~ 'C'oe ~ "o'^~'-S. ,
~
Specimen: TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM D
, cage 2
~al
DEe 1 22003
,....,
ILl
Specifications for Demolition and Site (~learing
1. 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.
2. The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field.
3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy oftree(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
remaln.
4. Any brush clearing required within the 'tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated
equipment.
5. 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]
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches
9. 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
10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications
11. A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree
protection zone
12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arbonst within six
hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health.
13. 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.
~5~".
DEe 1 220n3.
Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction
1. 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.
2. 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
3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
4. 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.
5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within
the tree protection zone (fenced area).
6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified
arbonst and not by construction personnel.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is
expected to encounter tree roots.
10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be detennined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the
soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches.
11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and ,vater diversion structures shall be
installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion v.rithin the tree protection zone.
12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any
trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 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.
13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly
with a saw.
14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6
inche~ 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.
;<3~
DEe 1 2 2003
III
11.1
~XHIBIT l ~~ J
Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation
October 13, 1997
Sub mitted to:
City of Ashland
Ashland, Oregon
Submitted by:
Otak, Inc.
17355 SW Boones Ferry Road
Lake O$wego, OR 97035
(503) 635-3618
fII"'j #"
;' "J!! "1
~. ",/ ,.'
DEe 1 2 2003
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 li.sted above are based on a subjective but none-the-less deterministic
ranking system.
Potential Ashland Creek Improvements
Calle Guanajuato Reach
The conceptual improvement to the Calle Guanajuato reach includes widening the
creek by ten feet on the left bank (looking downstream) and constructing a low
floodwall on the right bank. The wider channel 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 from 1 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 from Main Street if the 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 Brid~e backwater elevation: Munchies
(finished floor elevation of 1873.5 feet), GreienleafRestaurant (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 anew 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 gunite bank protection is failing.
The hydraulic model was modified to incorp~rate Calle Guanajuato reach
improvements and was evaluated with the proposed new Con-Span Bridge in
Winburn Way. Figure 10 indicates the wateir surface profile comparison between
the existing conditions and proposed modifications (i. e., enlarged creek channel cross
Ashland Creek Hydraulic Investigation
17
otak
P:\PROJECT\180011844\HYDRA l;LIASHLAN'D2. W PO
')
(..~
DEe 1 2 2003
11'1
L 1.1
..
section, floodwall, longer pedes~rian 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 pefore the January 1997 flood event. Figure 11 is a
plan view showing the lateral enent 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 IOO-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 Park is to replace the 18-foot-
wide by 9-foot-high Lithia Way Culvert with a 30-foot-wide by IO.,foot-high arch
culvert. Other recommended imIj>rovements include widening the creek channel
upstream and downstream of the:. culvert to maintain the efficiency of the larger
culvert. Removal of the 31 Wate! Street building was also studied in the model.
The hydraulic model was modified to reflect these proposed improvements.
Modifications to the Bluebird Park reach have no effect on the water surface
elevation downstream of the Litma 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. Fig\ure 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 IOO-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
I':\PROJECI\78007844\HYDRA L'l.\A.SHUN02. WPD
~.",......,
d~ f
_' ~J ['
DEe 1 2 2003
(EXHIBIT fl )
Ordinance No. I.,f?~~ F'
An ordinance adopting a new Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland
Municipal Code relative to Physical and Environmental
Constraints, and repealing the existing Chapter 18.62.
The people of the City of Ashland do ordain as follows:
Section 1: Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby repealed
in its entirety.
Section 2: The following section is hereby adopted as Chapter 18.62, and
shall read as follows:
"
Chapter 18.621
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Sections:
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent.
18.62.020 Regulatio'ns.
18.62.030 Definitions.
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required.
18.62.050 Land Classifications.
18.62.060 Official Maps.
18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands.
18.62.075 Deve~.opment Standards for RipaIiian Preserve Lands.
18.62.080 Development Standards for Erosive and Slope
Failure Lands.
18.62.090 Development Standards for WildQre Lands.
18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for
safe, orderly and beneficial development of di$tricts characterized by diversity
of physiographic' conditions; to limit alteration of topography and reduce
encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and; to provide
for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural
features. Physiographic conditions can be co~sidered to include, but are not
limited to: slope of the land, natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil
characteristics, potential landslide areas, and natural and wildlife habitats.
18.62.020 Reeulations. The type of regulation applicable to the land depends
,upon the classification in which the land is placed, as provided in Section
i~a~~
fEB 1 3 ZO;~c.
111
, .
"'.... ...
18.62.050. If those regulations conflict with other regulations of the City of
Ashland's Municipal Code, the more stringent of the two regulations shall
govern.
18.62.030 Dennitions. The following terms are hereby defined as they apply
to this Chapter:
A Architect - An architect licensed by the State of Oregon.
I
B. Buildable area That portion of an existing or proposed lot that
is free of building restriqtions. For the purpose of this ordinance, a
buildable area cannot contain any setback areas, easements, and
similar building restrictions, and cannot contain any land that is
identified as Floodplain Corridor Lands, or any land that is greater
than 40% slope.
C. Cohesive Soils - Resildual or transported soils, usually originating
from parent rock which contains significant quantities of minerals
which weather to clay. qohesive soils have a Plasticity Index of 10 or
more, based on laboratory testing by AASHTO, or a site-specific
scientific analysis of a particular soil material.
D. Development - Alteration of the land surface by: 1) grading, filling,
cutting or other earth-moving activity involving more than 50 cubic
yards on any lot; 2) the temoval of three or more living trees of over
six inches diameter at breast height (DBH), or the removal of 5% of
the total number of living (or dead trees) over 6" DBH, whichever is
greater, on any lot within anyone calendar year, or any form of
commercial logging; 3) construction of a building, road, driveway,
parking area, or other structure, 4) culverting .of any stream.
E. Engineer - A registered professional engineer licensed by the State
of Orego~.
F. Engineering Geologi~t - A registered professional engineering
geologist licensed by the! State of Oregon.
G. Floodway Channel -'J1he floodway channel as defined in the Flood
Insurance Study for Ashland, Oregon, publisbed by tbe Federal
Emergency Management Agency on December 1, 1980.
H. ~ - A drainage incision, commonly caused by erosion, which
does no.t experience regullar or seasonal stream flow, but does act as
a channel for runoff durilng periods of high rainfall.
I. Non-cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils containing no or
very little clay, usually from crystalline granitic parent rock.
Non-cohesive soils have a Plasticity Index of less than 10, based on
laboratory testing by AA$HTO, or a published scientific analysis of a
. ~ ...,J.A q
f!'(Q/
1..1.1
u-
rEB 1 32004
11'1
or less.
1) Location of all parking ar~as and spaces, ingress and egress
on the site, and on-site circulation.
m)Locations of all existing natural features including,
but not limited to, all tre~s of a caliper greater than
6 inches DBH, natural d~ainages or creeks on the site, and
outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. In forested areas, it is
necessary to identify only. those trees which will be affected.
or removed by the proppsed development. Indicate any
contemplated modifications to a natural feature.
n) The proposed method ~f -erosion control, water runoff
control, and tree protecti~n for the development.
0) Building envelopes for all ~xisting and proposed new parcels
that contain only buildable area, as defined by this Chapter.
2. Additional plans and studies ~ required in Sections 18.62.070,
18.62.080, .18.62.090, 18.62.100 of tllis Chapter.
E. Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be
issued by the Hearings Officer when tbe Applicant demonstrates the
following:
l.That the development will not cause damage or hazard to persons
or property upon or adjacent to the area of development.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the
development may create and implemented reasonable measures to
mitigate the potential hazards caustd by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the
~dverse impact on the environment Irreversible actions shall be.
consider~~ 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.
4. That the development is in conipliance with the requirements of
this chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes.
F. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission has the power to amend plans
to include any or all of the following condhionsif it is deemed necessary to
mitigate any potential negative impact cau~ed by the development:
1. Require the retention of trees, rocks, ponds, water courses and
other natural features.
2. Require plan revision or modification to mitigate possible negative
or irreversible effect upon the topography or natural features that the
;(+0
fE,B ~ 3 2004
1.1.1
particular soil type.
J. Riparian - That area associated with a natural water course
including its wildlife and :vegetation.
K. Wildfire - Fire cau~ed by combustion of native vegetation,
commonly referred to aslorest fire or brush fire.
18.62.040 Approval and Pennit lRequired.
A A Type I Physical Copstraints Review Permit is required for any
development, as define~ .in 18.62.030 (C), in areas identified as
Floodplain Corridor LaI1ld, Riparian Preserve, Erosive and Slope
Failure land, or Severe qonstraint land.
B. If a development is p~ of a Site Review, Performance Standards
Development, Conditiona~ Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other
Planning Action, then the Review shall be conducted simultaneously
with the Planning Action, and no additional fee shall be charged.
C. If a development is exc1usive of any other Planning Action, as noted
in Subsection B, then ~he Physical Constraints Review shall be
processed as a Staff Permit.
D .Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any
development requiring a Physical Constraints Review:
1. A site plan containing! the following:
a) Project name.
b) Vicinity map. i
c) Scale (the scale, shall be at least one inch equals 50
',"feet or larger). '
d) North arrow.
e) Date.
f) Street names and locations of all existing and proposed
streets within ot on the boundary of the proposed
development.
g) Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
h) Location and u~e of all proposed and existing buildings,
fences and strqctures within the proposed development.
Indicate which quiIdings are to remain and which are. to be
removed.
i) Location and size of all public utilities. affected by
the proposed development.
j) Location of drainage ways or public utility easements
in and adjacent ito the proposed development.
k) A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of 5 feet
:?'-! (
FE8 1 3 2004
damage from erosion and slope failure. The following lands are classified as
Erosive and Slope Failure Lands:
1. All areas defined as erosion andislope failure lands on the Physical
Constraints Overlay map and which have a slope of 40% or greater.
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.
E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics
which generally limit normal development. The following lands are classified
as Severe Constraint Lands:
1. All areas which are within the floodway channels, as defined in the
City's Flood Protection Ordinance, Chapter 15.10.
. -
2. All lands with a slope greater than 50%.
F. Classifications Olmulative. The above classifications are cumulative in
their effect and, if a parcel of land falls under. two or more classifications, it
shall be subject to the regulations of eacli classification. Those restrictions
applied shall pertain only to those portions of the land being developed and
not necessarily to the whole parcel.
18.62.060 Official Maps.
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 accurrclte1y reflect the mapping criteria
contained in this ordinance or in the findings of the Council in adopting a
official map may be processed as a Type 1 procedure.
18.62.070' Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands
For aU land use actions which could resulti in development of the Floodplain
Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter
15.10:
A Standards for fill in Floodplain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as require!d by the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least 10 feet outside of floodway
~ tt.~,
fEB 1 3 2004
III
proposed development may cause.
G. The Staff Advisor or Plann~ng Commission may deny the Physical and
Environmental C9nstraints Review Permit if, in its opinion:
1. The proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the
lands regulated and prot~cted by this Chapter, or if inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan..
2. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a more extensive
development that would require a master site plan, or other Planning
Action. In this case, approval is to be postponed until a complete
planning application bas ~een processed.
18.62.050 Land C1assitications~ The following factors shall be used to
determine the c13:Ssifications of ~ous lands and their co~traints to building
and development on them:
A. Floodplain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood
hazard. The following lands arc classified as Floodplain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 100 year floodplain as defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, "in maps adopted by Chapter
15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
2. All land within tbe aJiea defined as Floodplain 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.
4.. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek
designated for Riparian Preservation in 18.62.050 (B) and depicted as
such on maps adopted by the Council as provided . for in section
18.62.060."
5. All areas within 10 feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage
channel depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated
as Riparian PreselVation.
B. . Riparian Preservation - The followi~g Floodplain Corridor Lands are
also designated for Riparian Pres~rvation for the purposes of this Section and
as listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps:
. Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, ~tchen, Ashland, Neil, and Wrights Creeks.
C. Erosive and Slope Failure ~nds - Lands with potential erosion hazards.
Erosive Lands and Slope Failu~e Lands are lands which are subject to
;( ~,~~
11.1
fES 1 3 2QO'4
channels, as defined in section 15.10.
3. The amount offill in the Floodplain 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.
c. Plants and other landscapi~g material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards ~f other imported fill material, or
300 cubic yards per acre, whi~hever is greater. These amounts
are the maximum cumulative 'fill that can be imported onto the
site, regardless of the numbelr of permits issued.
e. The above limits on fill sh~ll be measured from April, 1989,
and shall not exceed the abowe amounts.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3)
above, then fill materials must be o~tained on the lot from cutting or
excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for
permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained
from the portion of the lot in the Floodplain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a builC1Jing site shall be located as close
to the outside edge of the Floodplain Corridor as feasible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway ~r creek identified on the official
maps adopted p1irsuant to section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer.
Stream crossings shall be designed to th~ standards of Chapter 15.10, or
where no floodway has been identified, -to Jl>ass a 100 year flood without any
increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider
in his/her design the probability that the eulvert will be blocked by debris
in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting
and bridging shall be kept to the minimum Jlecessary, 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.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proofed to the standards in
Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the elevatiQn 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 elevated to an elevation of 10 feet above
the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to 5 feet above the creek
~~
III
fEB 1 3 2004
1.1.1
channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050
(B); and 3 feet above the s~ream channel on all other drainage ways
identified on the official maps.: .
D. All residential structures small 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, whiever height is greater. Where no specific
elevations exist, then they must be elevated to an elevation of 10 feet above
the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to 5 feet above the creek
channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050
(B); and 3 feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways
identified on the official maps. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable
floor shall be certified to the clW by an engineer or surveyor prior to' issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for the structure.
E. To the maximum extent feaSible, structures shall be placed on other than
Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in
the Floodplain corridor area, t~en development shall be limited to that area
which would have the shallowest flooding.
F. Existing lots with buildable'. land outside the Floodplain Corridor shall
locate all residential structure$ outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or
more of the of the lot is within the Floodplain 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 floodplain corridor
that is 2 feet or less below the. flood elevations on the official maps, but in
no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek.
Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above.
G.New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Floodplain
Corridor lands that are two feet or less below the flood elevations on the
official maps adopted in section. 18.62.060. Second story construction may be
cantilevered aveC' the floodplain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the
clearance from finished grade is at least 10 feet in height, and is supported
by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The
finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood
corridor elevations.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots
which contain Floodplain Corri~or land must contain a building envelop~ on
a11lot(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.
1. Basements
~~,~
.fEB 1. 3 2004
4. The general topography of Riparian Presetvation lands shall be
retained.
18.62.080 Development Standards for Ero~ive and Slope Failure Lands.
A All development which removes vegetation or disturbs topsoil and leaves
the disturbed soil at a slope of 50% or more shall comply with the following
standards:
1. Any exposed soil shall be revegetated in a manner to reestablish
a vegetative community within a o,e-year period from issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. If irrigation is not provided, then the
exposed soil must be planted with species which can survive without
irrigation. .
2. Vegetative cover, rock, dry or conventional masonry, or other
permanent cover must be maintained in perpetuity on areas which
have been" disturbed.
3. These restrictions shall not apply to areas of exposed bedrock
which exhibit no erosion potential.
B. Any development which increases the' natural runoff by decreasing the
infiltration of the soil shall confo~ to the following standards:
1. All roof drainage must be coIlec~ed, controlled and directed either
by underground pipe or concrete or asphalt gutter to a City street or
storm drain or a natural water course.
2. All drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious
surfaces must be collected, controlled and directed to a City street or
storm dr~n by underground pipe or concrete or asphalt gutter.
3. Other alternate methods of sltorm water disposal, such as a
leachfield, must be approved by the City's Public Works Department.
c. Cuts and Fills.
1. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the
Uniform Building Code.
2. In addition, any cuts and/or fills greater than 250 cubic yards must
be designed by an engineer to comply with UBC Chapter 70. Such
cuts and/or fills shall be designed i,such a manner that they will be
stable for the use intended.
3. If the excavation is not a City street or a public right-ai-way, the
~ t./-Ic
fES 1 3 2004
11'1
1) Habitable basements are not permitted for new residential
structures or additions lQcated within the Floodplain Corridor.
2) Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar
uses, are permitted for re~idential structures but must be flood-proofed
to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
3) Development of hab~table basements of existing non-residential
structures that are at or below the flood elevations contained in the
official maps shall be permitted in the Ashland Historic Interest Area,
as defined in the Ashlanp Comprehensive Plan.
4) No new habitable qasements lower than two feet below the
floodplain corridor elev~tions shall be permitted on any existing or
new non-residential structure outside the historic interest area.
5) Habitable basements shall not be used for sleeping quarters.
J. Storage of petroleum produ~ts, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic
chemicals is not permitted in Floodplain Corridor lands.
K Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek
designated by this ordinance. shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or
similar fence that would not co~lect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not
including wire mesh or chain Jink fencing.
L Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Floodplain
Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in paragraph (C) and
(D) of the section, shall be flpod-proofed to the standards contained in
Chapter 15.10.
M. Local streets and utility con~ections to developments in and adjacent to
the Floodplain Corridor shall b4 located outside of the Floodplain Corridor,
except for crossing the Corridor in the shortest possible distance.
18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands.
A All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined
in 18.62.050 (B), shall comply with the following standards:
1. Development shall b<t subject to all Development Standards for
Floodplain Corridor Lands (18.62.070).
2. Any species of pine, Qak, fir, madrone, yew, or Douglas Fir
over 6 inches DBH 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 angles to the creek channel .to
the greatest extent possilile. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
~'f7
1.1.1
rEB 1 3 2004
ill
engineer shall declare to the Clty, after the cut and/ or fill is
completed, that it was constructed tb plans and meets all standards set
forth in the plans approved.
4. Nothing in this Section shall abri~ge the City's right to inspect work
in progress or in its complet~d state, to make appropriate
measurements and tests to detenrtine if the cut and fill was made
according to plan, and to require alterations prior to final approval
of the cut and/or fill. "
D. Any development or partitioning whicq is proposed in Erosive and Slope
Failure Lands must be shown on a master plan at the time the final plan or
plat is filed. All development must comply with the master plan. Any
improvements necessary for the implem~ntation of the master plan (e.g.,
storm drains, gutters, etc.) which involve two or more parcels of land must be
constructed by the applicant prior to an~ development occurring on the
parcels.
E. All structures' in Erosive and Slope Failure Lands shall have foundations
which have been designed by an engineer or architect.
F. All newly created lots or lots modifi4d by a lot line adjustment must
include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area of
sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone,
unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conseIVation
purposes.
18.62.090 Development Standards for Wil4fire Lands.
A. A 30 foot "shaded fuel break" shall be installed and maintained around
each dwelling unit or structure. Such fuel preak shall be increased by 5 feet
for each 10% increase in slope over 10%.
B. A "shaded fu'el break" is defined as an area which is free" of dead or dying
vegetation, and has native, fast-burning s~ecies sufficiently thinned so that
there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. 'Vhere necessary
for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in
slow-burning species. Fuel breaks do not ipvolve stripping the ground of all
native vegetation.
c. No structure shall be constructed or ,re-roofed with wooden shingles,
shakes or other combustible roofing materi~l, as defined in the City's building
code.
D. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall
be included in t~e erosion control measures outlined in Section 18.62.080.
E. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for
the maintenance of fuel breaks shall be included in the Covenants,
;(4fg
rES 1 3 2004
1..1.1
Conditions and Restrictions for the development.
18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
A Severe Constraint Lands ar~ extremely sensitive to development, grading,
filling, or vegetation removal anti, whenever possible, alternative development
should be considered.
B. Development of floodways iis not permitted except for bridges and road
crossings. Such crossings shall be designed to pass the IOO-year flood without
raising the upstream flood height more that 6 inches.
C. Development of land or approval for a planning action shall be allowed
only when the following study has been accomplished. An engineering
geologic study approved by the. City's Public Works Director and Planning
Director establishes that the I site is stable for the proposed use and
development. The study shall include the following:
1. Index map.
2. Project description to include location, topography, drainage,
vegetation, discussion f)f previous work and disCussion of field
exploration methods.
3. Site geology, based <m a surficial survey, to include site geologic
maps, description of bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial
fill, locations of any faullts, folds, etc., and structural data including
bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure.
4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a
potential hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-site
development.
5. Suitability of site fpr proposed development from a geologic
standpoint.
6. Specific recommendations for cut slope stability, seepage and
drainage control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish
whether an area to be affected by the proposed development is stable,
additional studies and supportive data shall include cross-sections
showing subsurface struc~ure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration,
results of laboratory test' and references.
8. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist.
~ t./- '1
fEB 1 3 2004
The foregoing ordinance was first r~ad by title only in accordance
with Article X, Section 2(C) of the city Charter on the 20th day of
June, 1989, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989.
g".-- ;.
/ ,,;' /..... '..: ~
.. ..7p,,<.' A; ;4",,,(jt{:4~
Nan E. Yrankl in
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
':-/dL
;/ .:.. day of July I 1989.
~,,'"-~ j A4~
Catherine M. Golden
Mayor
rES 1 3 2004
:2. 5D
III
l.1.1
9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site.
18.62.110 Density Transfer
Density may be transferred out of unbuildable areas to buildable areas of a
lot provided the following standards are met:
A Partitions and subdivisions ~nvolving density transfer shall be processed
under Performance Standards, Chapter 18.88 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
B. A map shall be submitted showing the net buildable area to which the
density will be transferred.
c. A covenant shall be recorded limiting development on the area from
which density is transferred.
D. Density may not be transferred from one ownership to another, but only
within the lot(8) owned by the same person.
E. Density may be transferred only on contiguous lots under common
ownership.
F. The density of the buildable area may not be increased to more than two
(2) times the permitted density of the underlying zone. Fractional units are
to be rounded down to the next whole number."
-..:x- Section 3. Section 18.68.100 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 4. The maps attached hereto and by this reference made a part of
this ordinance are hereby adopt~d as the official maps referenced by Section
18.62.060 of the above adopted chapter.
Section 5. Th~.' filing fee for a minor amendment as defined in Section
18.62.060(B) of the maps adopt~d by Section 4 above is hereby waived for a
period for 6 months from the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 6. The Floodplain Corridor for Bear Creek is specifically excluded
from this ordinance, and the Bear Creek Floodplain Area will continue under
the moratorium adopted by the Council until a floodplain corridor is adopted
for Bear Creek through Section 18.60.060.
;'<5 !
FES 1 3 2004
Date Received
lcr......~~ OF ASHLAND PLANNINO-^\PPLICATION
} -\ 1 Type
,)
1~{ILI03 File No. 'l..o()~-OOZ Filing Fee
Zoning
Comp Plan Designation
Receipt #
J I
5 (32. ()O
r rU'J 41;(2-
I
I
o Minor Land Partition D Outline Plan (# Units ) D Zone Change
o Variance D Final Plan D Comp Plan Change
o Conditional Use Permit f9 Site Review D Staff Permit
o Boundary Line Adjustment D Annexation D Solar Waiver
APPLICATION IS FOR:
Application pertains to 18.62 and 18. 72
chapter, section, subpart
of the Ashland Municipal Code.
APPLICANT
Name
Lloyd M. Haines
Phone
Address
51 Water Street
Ashland OR 97520 Suite 222
PROPERTY OWNER
Name
88 North Main, LLC
Phone
Address
51 Water Street Suite 222 Ashland OR 97520
SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE AR HIT CT (may need to use back page)
Name
Craig A. Stone & Associates Ltd.
.Aqent
Phone 779-0S69
Address 708 Cardley Ave
Medford OR 97504
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address 8R North M;d n ~trppt-
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 09BB
Tax Lot(s) 9800
When was the above described property acquired by owner?
On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restricticms concerning use of property or improvements
contemplated, as well as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract
developers. Give date said restrictions expire.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet( s) of paper and enclose it
with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact
and supported by evidence. List the findinas criteria and the evidence which supports it.
;2.5;;>-
II']
l.1.1
\'
, -
LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the owner of real property described as Tax Lot 9800
on Jackson County Assessors Map 39-1E-09BB.
LET IT BE KNOWN that Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. is the duly authorized representative
of88 North Main LLC., the owner of record of the above described real property and its member,
Lloyd Matthew Haines, who is acting as applicant for land use applications on the above
described real property. By this instrument, 88 North Main LLC. and Lloyd Matthew Haines,
hereby authorizes Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. to perform in their names all acts
procedurally required in conjunction with obtaining a Physical Constraints Review, Site Review
and Tree Removal Permit on the above described real property by and through the City of
Ashland, Oregon and such other land use and development applications and permits for the
above described real property as may be required by and through the City of Ashland as legal
prerequisites to actual development of the r~al property.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited
and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey" any part or any
interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by 88 North Main, LLC or Lloyd Matthew
Haines.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the
undersigned record owner and shall expire on December 30, 2004, but may be extended by the
mutual consent of the parties.
Done and dated this {(J1ltday of ~- ~~ , 2003.
88
I
By:
Lloyd Matthe Haines . "-
Authorized Signatory
J::{J;;;(S
Lloyd Matthew Haines
:<5~
EXHIBIT 12 IS MISSING.
Photograph of Tree Sculpture and
newspaper article of same.
23t/
III
l.1.1
ASHLAND STREET TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
Applicant:
Llovd Haines
Date: January 9.2004
Address:
88 North Main Street
Commercial: X Residential:
Proposed Action:
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-1-D; Assessor's Map #: 39
1 E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 9800.
Recommendation:
1) Tree protection measures as noted iI!1 ALVO 18.61.200 shall be implemented prior to
any site disturbance for trees along creek. All associated tree protection fencing shall
be flush with the grade and fencing posts shall not penetrate into the root zone.
2) Tree protection signs, as noted in ALVO 18.61.200, shall be installed and visible
from the construction zone. .
3) Avoid compaction in root zone.
4) Mitigate loss of large Alder within adjacent State right-of-way. Mitigate with large
specimen tree listed in the Recommended Street Tree List.
5) Consider State right-of-way as "gateway" for future public art.
Commission Representative:
_Date:
Follow-up:
~ S- 'f.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Krippaehne commented she feels the applicants are not threatening an ultimatum here. Rather, she feels the
applicant has opened up to considerably more input form the Commission and the neighbors by keeping the
garage attached to the house. As itself, the square footage of the house is fine. She feels the Commission
should take the opportunity to move in the direction of the applicant mitigating the concerns of the neighbors.
Shostrom stated that under normal conditions, a 2,500 square foot house is of average size. Leighton
acknowledged there are unusable corners of the lot that will not be used. She would still like to see a smaller
house on the lot, however..
Skibby argued the house size itself is within the law. Krach agreed, but wondered why the limit needs to be
pushed every time. Saladoff said the obvious option would be that the applicant move the garage to separate the
two buildings. Exceptions provide valid arguments to see mote of these projects at full Commission meetings.
Saladoff agrees there are some scale issues from the neighboring lots but doesn't want to see the bulk and
scale increased by separating the buildings.
Whitford declared he would like to see a smaller house on the lot but also acknowledged the house will seem
larger if the garage is detached and pushed over six feet.
Krippaehne said she understands about the height of the foundation and agreed there should be a condition to
screen it through landscaping.
Leighton maintained that coverage is the issue here. The applicant should have created a smaller house.
Shostrom related there are many hillsides in Ashland and many large houses. He feels the landscape should be
used to mitigate the appearance of the house from Granite Street. Ryan stated he was trained as a landscape
architect and would be willing to soften the look of the foundation with different materials and landscaping.
Knox stated that if the Planning Commission votes to approve this application, a condition could be added
stating the following: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant meet with the neighbor to the east
(Sharkey) to address screening along the shared property line. Plans shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for
final review and approval.
In discussing this further, Shostrom recounted this is an unusually steep lot that dictates where the house will be
built. Other issues that contribute to the uniqueness include: separating the house and the garage would only
add to the mass, the square footage is not unusually large, the driveway grade is very steep, the house sits five
feet below the garage, the low pitches of the roofline mitigate;the height issue, and modulation of the rooflines
and stepping back sections of the house have contributed to breaking up the elevations.
Shostrom moved to recommend approval of this application based on the odd shaped lot and mitigating
architectural design of the house with one of the conditions of approval reading as follows: Prior to issuance of a
building permit, the applicant meet with the neighbor to the. east (Sharkey) to address screening along the
shared property line. Plans shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for final review and approval. Krippaehne
seconded the motion and it passed with the following voice vote - Krippaehne, Leighton, Saladoff, Shostrom,
Skibby and Swink voting aye and Krach and Whitford voting nay.
Planning Action 2004-002
Site Review, Physical Constraints Review and Tree Removal Permit
88 North Main Street
Lloyd Haines
Knox reported this application is for an 8,325 square foot three-story building. The first floor is 1,970 square feet
and will accommodate a restaurant and deck area. The second floor is 2,906 square feet and will include office
and retail space. The 3,449 square feet in the third floor will comprise two residential units. An elevator will be
incorporated in the building. He explained,the North Main Street elevation will be built to the property line. The
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
~. ~S~.
4
11'1
III
r-
(
CITY OF
ASHLAND
existing pedestrian bridge that crosses Ashland Creek to give access to Ashland Creek Bar & Grill will be
removed and replaced with an engineered draw bridge that can be raised if flooding occurs. Although officially
not part of this application, a new walkway (Ashlland Creek Walk) is proposed, which will start at North Main
Street and wind down toward Ashland Creek and !the parking area under the viaduct and connect with Bluebird
Park. Knox stated there will be a lot of landscaping around the north and west portions of the building. Staff feels
the archway that would be the entrance to Ashland Creek Walk should be simplified but is generally supportive
of this and the project. There are still flood plail1 issues that are being worked out so Knox explained if the
Planning Commission does not hear this application in January, it will be heard during the February meeting. The
design of the building and landscaping will not change.
Applicant Lloyd Haines explained the concept of placing the building where the existing decking is in the rear to
North Main Street. The building was designed to fit the Downtown Standards and it has been revised to address
Historic Commission concerns that were expressed at the November meeting. It will be a mixed use building with
office, retail, residential and restaurant space. Haines stated he is very excited about Ashland Creek Walk. The
concept is to get rid of the deck and disturbances associated with Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and create an art
park. The walkway will connect Bulebird Park with the viaduct and back to North Main Street. Unfortunately, it is
not feasible to keep the large Alder tree; however, Haines stated he has offered to hire local artist Russell Beebe
to create a sculpture and furniture out of the Alder. The sculpture and benches will be placed along the walkway.
Since the State of Oregon owns the property under the viaduct, the City has the right to use it and Haines is
hoping to work with the City and Parks Commission on this project. Haines has offered to finance the sculpture,
benches, lighting and some of the landscaping.
Architect Dave Richardson stated he revised the northwest elevations to incorporate Historic Commission
concerns. Windows were added and stepped down copings on the side were integrated. He said they have
created an attractive side that ties in to the front Qf the building. Cantilevers have softened the design, details
have been added to the bottom in addition to corbels. Richardson also stated the base is now heavier.
Leighton asked about the third story stairway and Ilanding on the southeast side of the building, noting it should
be visible from all sides except the northwest. Richardson acknowledged it should have been on all elevations
and noted it is 40 feet back from the front of the building. The stairway will have a railing on its entirety. When
asked about the materials for the proposed building, Richardson responded the main building will be stucco with
brick sills and heads. The grills on the deck and stairway will be steel.
Shostrom opened the public hearing.
""
Aaron Heller, 824 Holton Road, Talent, stated he was neutral about the project but wanted to say a few things.
He grew up in Ashland and used to ride his bike on portions of the property that have been developed by Mr.
Haines. He would like the existing deck associated with Ashland Creek Bar & Grill to remain so people would be
able to have a place to hang out. Haines, however, said with the rowdy crowds, use of alcohol and vandalism
that has been occurring, this is not a case of money pushing out entertainment. Most everyone agrees there
should be less activity in that area. His concept Will be to bring in a new flavor.
As there was no one else to speak on this planning action, Shostrom closed the public hearing.
Krippaehne asked who would be paying for and maintaining Ashland Creek Walk. Haines said he would be
willing to provide the infrastructure, including the lights, artwork, benches, etc. if the Parks Department would
maintain the area.
Whitford commented it is a great looking project that will enhance the Downtown District. He also said the
pathway is a wonderful and charming concept. Skibby agrees on the design and the pathway; however, while he
feels it is necessary to mark the entrance of the walk, he would like to see a simplified version of the arch. Knox
said he would talk with landscape architect Kerry KenCairn, who has been working on the design of the stairway
replacement from Granite Street to Calle Guanajuato. Perhaps something similar could be used for the walkway.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
~51o
5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Skibby related that where Bluebird Park is now located, originally there were two larger buildings that spanned
the creek. They were demolished in the 1960s.
Shostrom asked what type of windows will be used and ,Richardson said they have not yet decided. Shostrom
noted he would like the Commission to review the windows as they get further into the project.
Krippaehne stated she likes what has been done to the northwest side of the building, nevertheless she is still
troubled by the depth and treatment of the overhang in the back. In her opinion, it feels oppressive with the huge
corbels. She wondered what type of pedestrian experience one would feel standing in that area. Skibby said he
feels pedestrians would feel more protected with more covering. Richardson remarked the bottom of the corbels
goes up seven feet and there is about 15 feet between the floors. This is the deck area for the restaurant.
Saladoff asked if the restaurant floor area will be the same elevation grade as the deck and Richardson
responded in the affirmative, noting it is a half flight up from the existing building.
Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application to the Planning Commission and Whitford seconded
the motion. On voice vote, all voted aye.
The Commission asked Haines and Richardson to come to the Review Board when the design gets to the
detailing stage.
Planning Action 2004-003
Site Review and Conditional Use Permit
987 Siskiyou Boulevard
Marc and Aaron Heller
Knox reported the applicants are requesting that a 317 square foot non-conforming garage be granted
permission to be used as a small single family residence. The existing siding will be maintained, windows will be
added on the north and west elevations, the garage door will be removed and replaced with a window and
entrance door on the south elevation, and windows will be removed on the east elevation (per building code
requirement). The building is fairly well hidden off Siskiyou Boulevard. Parking for the existing chiropractic
business in the house and the proposed unit is off the alley at the rear of the property. Staffs only concern is that
one tree may be removed"
Aaron Heller stated they do not plan to take out any trees.
Marc Heller explained that originally, the driveway went all the way back to the garage, but after he bought the
property he planted trees in that area. He said this application is a simple project. He had a garage that wasn't
being used for much and the roof was leaking. Aaron came up with the idea they could convert the building to a
small residential unit, fix it up and keep it as a reasonably priced rental. The house and garage are both stucco-
sided. Marc said the windows in the house are double and single hung with some being casement. Since he
bought the property in 1999, he has upgraded the windows but has not put in sliders.
Shostrom asked what type of windows would be put in the converted building and Marc stated they would be
casement, but he wasn't sure if they would be wood or vinyl. If vinyl, they will look the same as those on the
house.
Leighton asked if real stucco will replace the windows that need to be removed on the east elevation. Aaron said
he will do what he can to match the existing stucco. Shostrom asked that he match the stucco and match the
windows to the existing ones in the house, preferably with wood. Krippaehne noted that on the drawings, which
were submitted for the west elevation, it appears the left window will be a slider. Marc agreed it should not be
and stated he will match the windows with the house. He also said landscaping will hide any imperfections in the
stucco on the east elevation.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
January 7, 2004
:<57
6
11'1
1..11
Miscellaneous Public CODlDlents
;2..Sg
I ---...---..----...-...--.-...-.. ........-- ..-.-.
t,~~,~~.n....y~!~.~....:..J~~...gQ.Q1.:,QQg.... ~
~,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
mencken <mencken@internetcds.com>
<molnarb@ashland.or.us>
3/9/2004 3:25:27 PM
PA 2004-002
I am participating in the Planning Commission hearing on this matter
via writing. Please place the following in the file on the Haines
matter.
1. Applicant concedes that the alder tree in question is not a hazard
and his arborist concedes that the tree is presently in good overall
health.
2. Removal of the alder is not necessary to permit the appli~ation to
be consistent with applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements
and standards, including the ALUO sections cited in Applicant's
proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that issuance of a removal
permit satisfies the requirements of Section 18.61.080 (Criteria for
Issuance of Tree Removal Permit) of the Muncipal Code, including
subsections 8(2) and (3). Removal would, in fact, violate those
subsections.
4. Applicant's proposed mitigation is inadequate under subslection 8(4)
of Section 18.61.080 and .084.
5. Applicant has failed to provide proper notice for consideration of
his Application by the Ashland Tree Commission and thus the Planning
Commission.
The undersigned also incorporates by reference all other objections
lodged, either orally or in writing, by any other person to this
Application.
Randall Hopkins
an Ashland citizen
cc:
<sue@ashland.or.us>, <yeatss@ashland..or.us>
~S1
f
III
lI.l
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Oriana Spratt <oriana.spratt@charter.net>
<molnarb@ashland.or.us>
3/9/20044:19:33 PM
Alder tree
In addition to the earlier comment I em ailed for inclusion in the
Haines file (PA 2004-002), I also support any other objections from
others that are brought up on this matter, either orally or in writing.
Thank you,
Oriana Spratt
Ashland homeowner
~'D
3 -9-04
Re: P A2004-002 (Haines)
PHONE MESSAGE FROM BETH EVONUIK
95 NORTH MAIN
CO-OWNER OF BROTHERS RESTAURANT FOR OVER 20 YEARS
(Her e-mail was down and, therefore, she called in her comments.)
Beth wanted to express her opposition to this planning action. She is heartbroken about
the potential development on the Haines property. She feels there will be a loss of a
beautiful tree and open space in downtown.
Now that there is a potential for loss, she has heard many of her patrons, both locals and
tourists, express to her how very much they have enjoyed entering Ashland - the trees
and greenness of the space and the welcome feeling they get - the Haines space in
particular. They are afraid by developing this property and losing the natural beauty of
this space, Ashland will become like everyplace else. No one has expressed to her their
excitement or approval for this project, but mostly sadness.
(Message taken by Sue Yates, Planning Secretary)
~" I
III
MAR-08-2004 11:01 FROM:TOM MYERS
II!
5414884126
TO:541 770 5164
P.001
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone 541-482-3667
March 8, 2004
lioyd Haines
82 N. Main
Ash1and, OR 97520
Tree Protection Plan for 88 N. Main
The mutti-trunked Maple near the creek at 88 North Main is in good overall
health. Because it is so dose to the proposed building, some extra precautions will
be needed to insure that it sUfVives the building process. Although the building has
been moved back to accomidate the tree. one of the trunks will still be to the way of
construction. That leader will need to be shortened in order to accommodate the
building. If that leader were cut all the way down, it could lead to decfine of the entire
trunk so it is preferable to shorten it so that the rest of the tree can sUNive. All
pruning on this tree, either before or during construction. should be done by a
certified arborist If proper precautions are taken as outlined in the original
specifICations for tree protection, this Maple should sUNive the building process. If
you have any further -questions please call me at 482-3667.
~~,~-
Tom Myers Certified Arborist DBA Upper Limb-it
I'
,'.,. .
j(,;z
March 8, 2004
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Shasta Building '03 I Lloyd Haines
To Whom It May Concern:
A revised tree protection plan is being submitted with the following adjustments and
clarifications.
1.) It is my professional opinion that the Acer Macrophyllum mentioned previously
as three separate trees (#22, 23 and 24 on the tree protection plan) is actually one
tree. This has been corroborated by Tom Myers, certified Arborist with Upper
Limb-it Tree Service.
2.) The tree protection plan has been modified and is being re-submitted to reflect
one tree with three trunks. One trunk will be shortened to allow for the proposed
building (see plan). It will not be taken completely out so that it can be observed
for deterioration (see Tom Myers' letter). Minor pruning will need to be
performed on the two remaining trunks.
3.) It is Iny professional opinion that the required pruning will remove less than 50%
of the tree's canopy.
4.) Tree protection fencing has been added to the ODOT property contiguous to the
northwest property line.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
~r~-t
John Galbraith, ASLA
Landscape Architect
145 S. Holly STREET, SUiTE A · MEdfoRd, OR 97501 · (541) 770-7964 · FAX (541) 770-5164
liCENSEd . BONdEd . INSlIREd . LANdsCApE BusiNESS #6661 . LANdSCApE CONTRACTOR #m98 . .GENERAl CONTRACTOR #104274 . lANdsCAPE ARcllillCT OR-#)'lLI, C1\-#2950
www.galbraithandassociates.com.contact@galbraithandassociates.com
;({,3
11'1
1..1.1
ar-
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Diane Mcdermott" <giraudo@earthlink.net>
<molnarb@ashland.or.us>
3/8/2004 9:24:37 PM
Objection to alder tree removal
February 17, 2004
Ashland City Council
Ashland, Oregon
Dear Council Members:
Earlier this month I learned that the large alder tree on the east side of Main Street will be removed to
make room for the construction of a new building. This decision concerns me. As a one year old resident
of Ashland, I've heard complaints from people that the new library addition caused a large tree to be
removed. Some people even said they have refused to go to the library because they are still upset about
that decision. Are these people silly, old fashioned - not willing to move with the times, or do they actually
have their minds and their hearts in the right place?
It is no secret that the plaza, the heart of Ashland, is a large part of what draws visitors here. "Walking
distance to the Plaza" is a familiar selling point seen in Ashland real estate ads. Shouldn't it be imperative
that we do everything possible to preserve the beauty of the plaza area? This particular alder tree sits
handsome and stately at the entrance to the downtown plaza from the north. Even in the middle of winter it
stands full and elegant. What can be more beautiful than a healthy mature tree? A tree that took decades
to become what it is today - and something that we cannot create. Must we really destroy this?
One of the reasons I moved here from Southern California was that, in my research of the city of Ashland,
there seemed to be a love, an honor, and respect for trees. For example: the tree of the year pick, the fact
that you can't remove trees at your whim, and the cherished and beautiful Lithia Park. I would hate to see
our plaza become merely rows of buildings. I find it difficult to believe that there is no other available land
for this new construction. How many more trees can we remove and still keep the unique beauty of
Ashland - when do we stop?
I respectfully request that the decision to remove the alder tree be reconsidered, and I must believe there
are many more people in Ashland who share my sentiments.
Sincerely,
Diane McDermott
Ashland homeowner
~, 4-
Ashland Planning Commission
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
~nr nr:1~
H ~.~ - j
!
t j 1 "~AR (.) 'jnr-". f
I ,',R 0 ,:J'f o..ill
u ~-~C!J
~"9
Re: The Shasta Building at 88 North Main Street
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to encourage you to look favorably upon the proposal for an art walk/art
park/sculpture garden as part of the proposal for the Shasta Building design at 88 North
Main Street. In addition to being a business owner on the plaza I am also a member of the
Public Art Commission of the City of Ashland, an associate member of the Ashland
Gallery Association, a member of the Elks and Rotary clubs, an Adjunct Professor at
SOU and a member of the Siskiyou Woodcraft Guild. None of these affiliations should
be construed as making me a spokesperson for any of these organizations however I do
believe that they allow a qualified insight into the implications of the Shasta Building
proposal and support my conclusion that this is a desirable feature for our community.
Currently the area for the proposed art walk/art park/sculpture garden is a disgusting
blight on the creek side area. There is soiled concrete, random parking usage and a dreary
cement waflle ceiling. All this is within a few yards of one of Ashland's most picturesque
pocket parks (Bluebird) and less than Y2 block from the Plaza. Some efforts have been
made by neighboring businesses to improve this space but it remains the aesthetically
worst afllicted area of the downtown core. I'm sure that you have seen it and can confirm
this assessment yourself.
By contrast the art walk/art park/sculpture garden as part of the proposal for the Shasta
Building is open, inviting and provides much needed hosting opportunities for compatible
public art in our downtown core without negatively impacting the existing character and
identity of the city. This is precisely the kind of development that enhances the quality of
life for our community. For these reasons I urge you to encourage this proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
chard Benson
351 Morton Street
Ashland, OR 97520
:) " S-
11'1
l.1.1
r:
iN 8 20D4 !
li L. . ....",.Jil i
.....'"'_......."".,,_.-"~<_J t_J~
-~~~~~~~~------~.
Billy Rarto
Owner, Thai Pepper Restaurant
84 N. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
March 1st, 2004
Planning Department
City of Ashland
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my support for the proposed development at 90 N. Main Street.
This project will contribute to the beautification of AshlancL and benefit local businesses
with the added retail space it provides. This will make Ashland a more pleasant place for
locals and a more attractive tourist destination for those who vacation here.
Lloyd Haines has proven in his past business ventures that he understands the future of
Ashland is dependent on growth that is well planned and within the character of our
quaint small town. I extend my trust and support to Lloyd and this project.
Please feel free to contact me for further comments.
Sincerely,
-
Billy Harto
~6/"
[~~~~]i!~~~:,~:;lii2:;;iI
. .. P~~e 1 ;
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Dave Sprague" <dave@spraguerealestate.com>
<molnarb@ashland.or.us>
3/8/200410:42:02 AM
Planning Action - Site Review for Tree Removal
Bill Molnar,
I would like to state that I have no obj~tion to the Planning Action for
Lloyd Haines' project at the corner of North Main and Church streets. I have
seen the architect's renderings done for the project and feel it will be a
positive addition to the downtown area. It is unfortunate that the large
tree must be removed for the plan but Lloyd's use of the products from the
tree for artistic display around the !'Jew addition is a nice gesture.
My wife, Patricia and I, own the property directly accross North Main from
the project.
David and Patricia Sprague
99 North Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-2905
~'7
III
1..1.1
BEASY'S ON THE CREEK
03/05/04
Planning Commission & City Council Members
Re: Proposed Shasta Building.
Location: 88 N Main St.
I thank you in advance for your time in reading this letter.
My name is Robert Harvey; I own & operate Beasy's on the Creek located at 51 Water St., adjacent to the
proposed Shasta building.
I would like to voice my support for the project by focussing on the points of; 1) beautification of the area
beneath the Lithia Way bridge, and the entrance to downtown, 2) avoidance of dangerous pedestrian traffic
through the intersection of Lithia Way, Church St., North Main St., and Helman St, and 3) the benefit to the
patrons of the businesses on the North side of Lithia way.
I) Current conditions beneath the bridge are less than inviting. Barbed wire outlines portions of the fence
lining Ashland Creek in an attempt to keep out individuals seeking shelter beneath the bridge. It is not
uncommon to see an occasional bedroll tosses beneath the bridge nor is it uncommon to see the
accumulation of trash throughout the bushes that line the gateway to the downtown. This downtown
entrance could be as inviting and attractive as the Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard entrances
have become. The project could also exhibit Ashland's appreciation for the arts converting an unkempt
area into a visually inviting display of sculptures and their incorporation into the surrounding
landscape. With the completion of the proposed Shasta Building project the surrounding area would
receive a desireable improvement, which would include the Art Park and the Ashland Creek Walk.
2) The Ashland Creek walk provides a plan for safe passage of pedestrians from the comer of N main and
Church St beneath and to the north side of the Lithia Way, bridge. This path allows pedestrians to
avoid negotiating the inherently dangerous intersection of Helman St., N Main St., Church St., and
Lithia Way. A natural, circular pedestrian traffic pattern is formed by the completion of these two
paths. It would guide pedestrians along the business fronts between Water St. and the turn from Lithia
Way back towards the downtown, it would then, depart from the street circling down along Ashland
Creek to the proposed Art Park. At this point foot traffic can decide to continue on to their destinations
north of Lithia Way or return to the plaza via Blue Bird Park.
3) The last point I would like to touch on is the traffic generated by the Plaza Inn & Suites, the 3rd annex
of the Bard's Inn, The Blue Giraffe, and Beasy's on the Creek. During the festival season a large
percentage of my business is attributed to theatergoers. After dining with us they depart for the theater
with the intent of walking through and enjoying the downtown. The Art Park and Ashland Creek walk
will provide a clean, attractive, and safe passage, for these individuals to the downtown area.
In conclusion, my support for the Shasta Building project is with the image of a more beautiful area
beneath the Lithia Way bridge, more focussed on art, the creek, and a cleaner, safer passage for pedestrians.
Thank you again for your time.
~ C-~,~
Robert Harvey / vr'l{~
-'!J "'. / [~
~~lS
51 WATER ST. ASHLAND OREGON (541) 488-5009
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Oriana Spratt <oriana.spratt@charter.net>
<sue@ashland.or.us>
3/4/2004 10:35:14 PM
Thoughts on Ashland Trees
I attended my first Ashland Tree Commission meeting this evening, to
see what was being done to save that large, healthy alder on North
Main, next to the Creekside Grill, that serves as a verdant gateway to
the plaza. Every person who enters Ashland from the north sees this
dominant tree and benefits from its welcoming beauty, consciously or
not. What I learned at the meeting was that two weeks ago; that tree
was all but given its death warrant due to a proposed building, with an
explanation to the tune of "property owners' rights, what can you do,
it's a shame." The meeting then focused on gyrations to save a much
smaller tree in the back of the property that 99% of Ashland residents
have probably never even seen.
As an ordinary citizen I'd like to get on record that it really isa
shame that in this otherwise wonderful city, anyone can buy a piece of
land with a significant, very public tree that a whole town has enjoyed
for decades and cut it down just because they paid for it. It isn't
that way in every town. I know of one (Palo Alto, Ca.) where there are
strictly enforced guidelines identifying and protecting every "heritage
tree" within city limits and where individual property owners'
financial interests take second seat to the shared responsibillity of a
city to protect its urban forest. Violations quickly yield a $5000 fine
and/or a halted construction project.
Every American town--and most in this valley--that has been denuded of
its signature trees has reams of city planning minutes that logically
justify their removal. But those reasons get filed away and the
resulting reality is everywhere--cities that have lost their natural
beauty, tree by tree by tree. A city's trees don't generate profit,
but they do make people love their town. I hope the Planning Council
has the muscle to think big and protect this tree for the rest of us.
Oriana Spratt
212 Patterson St.
482-1803
PS Below is FYI, as an example of how another similar city addresses
its tree issues. Palo Alto and Ashland have much in
common...progressive college towns, both own their own utilities, ahead
of the curve in terms of recycling etc. and both have large parks. More
info is available at www.canopy.org.
Heritage Tree Ordinance
Canopy's Summary of Palo Alto's Tree Ordinance No. 4362
The following summary is intended to merely outline the main points of
the ordinance. It is not legal advice, nor has the wording of this
summary been reviewed by City staff. If you think you may be affected
by the ordinance, you should read the official wording in its entirety.
You may request a copy from the City Clerk's office. The full text is
also available here.
~"'1
III
1.1.1
r. "'_. .--,-- .._--.-. --... ....-..... .-"--'. .. -.- ------,r-. . -....-.-- - . - ._- - .- ... - .--..-
I Susan yates - Thoughts on Ashland Tref-c;
. . ..-..-.-.-..- .~..__._---_.._.._----_._-(
----..-.-..... -...-----.-.-. --.--.. .--- ----...-. -.-. ...._-,
.___._____..._____.__....____....___... ._~_ag~ _~]
What Trees are Protected?
* All Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) 11.5" or greater in diameter
(measured at 54" above the natural grade level -- roughly "chest
height")
* All Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata) 11.5" or greate~ in diameter
* Individual trees of any size and species which are specially
designated by the City Council as "Heritage Trees." To receive such a
designation, a tree must be an outstanding specimen, especially old or
large, or of distinctive form, location, or historical significance.
The Council may be asked to reverse its designation of a Heritage Tree.
What Does "Protected" Mean?
The following actions are illegal:
* Removing a protected tree
* Damaging a protected tree, for example, by excessive pruning or
overwateri ng
Details are described in the Tree Technical Manual.
What is the Tree Technical Manual?
The City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual provides details about
how protected trees must be maintained and cC3ired for during building
and construction. It specifies particular practices for builders and
owners of protected trees. The manual is, in essence, a detailed
extension of the ordinance.
What are the Exceptions for Removal?
* A protected tree can be removed if it is dead, dangerous, or a
nuisance, as attested by an arborist's report, submitted to the City
and paid for by the tree owner.
* A protected tree in or very close to the "building area" of an
approved single family residence design can be replaced by another tree.
* A protected tree can be removed if its presence reduces the building
area of the lot by more than 25%.
How does the Ordinance Affect Building Permit Applications?
Building plans must show protected trees on the property and within 30
feet of it in neighboring yards.
What are the Penalties for Violations?
* The City can halt a construction project.
* The City can fine up to $5000 or the replacement value of a removed
protected tree, whichever is greater.
:< 71)
Z~~Hr Shupe/
March 4,2004
Ashland Planning Commission,
20 E Main Street,
Ashland Or. 97520
Ref: Shasta Building Site 88 N Main Street, Ashland, OR.
I feel obligated to express my views regarding this proposed
project.
Trees are beautiful, they enhance nature and most people's
lives. And,1 can certainly understand the opposition of some
members of this community to scrap this project, because of
an old existing tree, trees.
However, having seen the new building plans with the
adjacent area, I feel, that this is a great improvement over
what is now, a very unattractive, blighted site.
I should think a cleanup of this area, would be in the interest
of the City of Ashland. Also, it provides a very pleasant
tt:rt cut to the City Center, for the many Plaza Hotel guests
~o ViS~ nd/.
Sin~IY
Ingrid Boldt
Manager/Owner
51 Water St.; Ste 225 Ashland, OR 97520 USA (541) 482-9341 Fax (541) 482-9426
E-Mail: setsail@lithia~cruises.com
,;271
III
1..1.l
(.._......\
f
Planning Commission Members
Ashland Planning Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
Re: 88 N. Main/Shasta Building
~
ruffon
~
; ,I
;- -~J, _ -__--~ .,\ ."
;~ - ~
Utg~
f jub~ ~ . .. ."
'-----...--=::::><.~~'T,,\.,~~.~
March 2, 2004
Dear Commissioners,
Our office has been located at 77 North Main Street for 13 years, almost directly across
from Lloyd Haines' proposed Shasta Building at 88-92 North Main. Having reviewed his
plans we are supportive of his proposal and feel that it will be an attractive addition to the
downtown streetscape. It is our understanding that one large tree will need to be removed
in order for the proposal to be feasible. We support the removal of this tree, which is
unattractive and disproportionately large for the general design of this pivotal comer
entrance to our downtown area. We are also considering traffic safety. Mr. Haines'
design (including the removal of this tree) will enhance the safety of this awkward,
confusing, and dangerous intersection. Pleas ppr ve this applica . on.
Peter Brunner
Principal Broker
77 North Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520
tJ,7:L
(541) 482-8701 FAX: (541) 482-8664
web site: www.brunnerwhiterealtors.com
Planning Commission
20 E Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
March 2, 2004
Dear Members of Planning Commission,
SUBJECf: 88 N. MAIN/SHASTA BUILDING
In writing this letter, I hope to persuade you to endorse the Lloyd M. Haines
proposed building project at 88 N MainS treet. Asp art 0 wner 0 f property at
31 Water Street and 82 N. Main, I believe this project will improve the
surrounding properties for many reasons.
First, after seeing the building plans, I find the proposed building attractive
and appropriate in style for its downtown location. The proposed fas;ade
maintains the historical context of its settmg and blends with the existing
buildings on Main Street. The proposed landscaping provides a greenbelt
around the building that will be attractive to both passengers in cars and
pedestrians.
Second, the proposed Ashland Creek walk that connects with Bluebird Park
will be a delightful place to enjoy the sounds and movement of the Creek.
The proposed walk furthers this wonderful sense of place in the heart of
downtown Ashland.
Another aspect of this project that speaks to my background as a former
Ashland Middle School art teacher, former chair of the Department of Art
and Professor Emeritus at Southern Oregon University, is the proposal to
create an artpark under the viaduct. Not only will this cleanup the area, but
also will create a much-needed space for public art. Mr. Haines also proposes
to create a public work of art and public benches and tables out of an existing
tree slated for removal in the building process. I applaud Mr. Haines for his
interest in commissioning a public work of art out of this tree rather than
disposing of it. Mr. Haines' proposal is consistent with his long time support
of art and artists in our region.
Sincerely,
:l~
Judith Ginsburg
630 LEONARD ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
~ 73
III
1.1.1
(
March 1, 2004
~@[[nnnf?~
~ -
n~t MIl 3_
~1':,j
, .~,', _,~,' ".;]r.:',.<i):l
, .' ~""." L',. "c.:;(.;J
,-':_~.f ~~, ...Ji ~ '
~-i.:.:'''''q ~ ~~i.li~
Planning Commission
20 East Main. Street
Ashland, OR 97520
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regard to the property owned by Lloyd Haines at 88 North Main Street.
I understand that a currently standing tree is proposed to be cut down and then be used as
the material for a sculpture by Russell Beebe.
I believe this is a wondelful idea that \\'ill serve to delight Ashland citizens and visitors
for generations. I was fortunate to observe and film Russell sculpting a tree on Mr.
Haines home property. The result was nothing short of fantastic and I am certain that a
grateful public would very well receive the sculpture at 88 North Main. Russell is an
extremely talented artist whose work will be cherished for generations. Weare lucky to
have a citizen like Mr. Haines who is willing to underwrite the creation of an outstanding
piece of art for our town.
/!
I .
Sinc~ I .'
~ /...y, 1/
/ ///(/ J" ". /
,~~ //\{L,
Ken Silverman, President
tJ.7tf
25 East Main St. · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 482-3621 · FAX: (541) 482-3898
I~III~IBU~
March 1st, 2004
prrnnqp~
i~; MAR 3 2~O% j
':~
LJuL
City of Ashland
Planning commission
20 East Main
Ashland, Oregon 97520
...........~ ......
- -'-.-.---......"-"................
Re: 88-92 North Main Street, the Shasta Building
Members of the Ashland planning commission:
In regards to the construction of the Shasta Building, as long time residents of Ashland
and current business owners and operators of a small business, we are in support of this
project. We currently are two building lots south of the proposed project. We have seen
the architect's plans and realize this project will probably be of some inconvenience to
our business during construction. However, we are still in support of this undertaking for
the following reasons. The building design is consistent in architecture style and scale
with the surrounding buildings. The building fits into the landscape without dominating
the area. The building will provide the community with multiple choices of enterprise
within the building and within the downtown area. The building will improve the
business atmosphere within the block for all, as more selections and choices always do.
City residents and city coffers will benefit from the improved site and from the expanded
tax base. This is part of the business city "infill". This addressed commission should
appr project.
I
ely, D'
~~~~~:s?
~?Lf~
Frank Philipps Pottery
88 North Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
P.7:J
III
l.1.1
Michael C.. Babcock
71 Water Str~t, Unit 304
Ashland, OR 97520
March 1, 2004
r;Y~'- F':'
riil..n.........P..L,@rcr-\
\, t":L
!' \\4 DR
Mr. John McLaughlin
City of AshlandP-lanning Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 91520
... ,._;.-..".,.w....
., l?Jf.'_' Q"~ ( :""-,~..:.-~--
RE: Proposed Project - "88 N. Main" (Ashland Bar & Grill)
Dear Mr. MGLaughlin:
I reside at the above address and I am currently the President of the Ashland Creek
Condominiums AssociatioB-{)f.U-nit-Dwners.
This letter is written to you and the Planning Commission in support of the above
referenced project.
As both a resident and member of our Association Board of Directors, I have had
extensive contact and experi€nce -withtlw -de-veillper-m4lre--8S 1\l~ MainSLcP:roject
Mr. Lloyd Haines.
My experience in working with Mr. Haines has been positive in every respect. His
concern for~-eommunity-1Uldtbe4nte.gration-Dfthis~has beenwell-wnsidered
I have had an opportunity to review the preliminary plans for this project. Based on the
information-revlewed-to-date,.tbis -Pfoject-has-my~cSUpp01t.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly"
~11/L~/~~
Michael C. Babcock
A 7(,
A & A CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.
202 East Trent Avenue, Suite 400, Spokane, Washington 99202
(509) 624-1170fax (509) 624-1255
March 2, 2004
Ashland Planning Commission
1175 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action 2004-002
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My partner, Bill Lawson, and I own the Plaza Inn and Suites at Ashland Creek just to the south of and
adjoining property owned by Lloyd Haines for which the above proposed action is sought.
My partner and I have reviewed the proposal by Lloyd Haines and we are in agreement for what we
understand to be the projected use, project limitations, and conditions recommended by the Ashland
Planning Staff.
As such, we recommend approval of the project proposed by Mr. Haines. However, we want to make
sure that pedestrian access between the Plaza and our hotel remains open and will be enhanced, and that
other site improvements will be made to improve the overall area including reconfiguration and cleanup
of the garbage dumpsters.
If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this recommendation of approval, please feel
free to contact me at 509-624-1170.
Very truly yours,
~~~
Christopher R. Ashenbrener
CRA: sf
/J '1 ""1
~~~iml<n"lli~i""';jl~~~~~~~!II;U~nJS~~~~~reJ'<t.~~~,nT~fl.H}m{RIiHJO~mW~m~~~~>W!,t&~!-$a""!;~~1-::n~~
Contractor's Licenses Alaska M20704 Arizona 124930 CalIfornia 760705 Oregon 66668 Utah 0000431130 Washinston MCONDI134LE
111
ll.l
lIAN~ON IIOWAQDr~'GAL~QY
82 N. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541)488..2562
(0)' ~. ,,' f?... r rr:,n' f, ,.; [, ..
I '.'~,.,~::, C :,'
I
February 26, 2004
1 (JG','O'
/... '1
Planning Department
City of Ashland
20 E Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
L~~
-.. L, ~ __.~ '""_..........q ~ .....,.... ~..........~.......
~~ .:Y
RE: Proposed new building at 88 North Main
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I'm sending this letter to the Planning Department because I'm unable to attend the
upcoming hearing for the proposed building at 88 North Main. Please present this letter
as my testimony at the time of the hearing.
My business, Hanson Howard Gallery, is located adjacent to the Ashland Creek Bar and
Grill, which is the area where the proposed building will be constructed. I have seen
plans for the building and believe it is well designed and consistent with the many
improvelnents that Mr. Haines has developed around the creek area. The proposal to
create the "Ashland Creek Walk" connecting with Bluebird Park brings continuity to the
entire development which is in my opinion a very good idea.
I understand that Mr. Haines is offering to have Russell Beebe carve a sculpture from the
tree that must be removed when the building is constructed. As an artist and gallery
owner, I'm familiar with Russell's work and have seen the sculpture he has recently
created from a tree that needed to be removed from another property. He is a very fine
artist and a long time area resident. His work would be a welcome addition to the city.
Public Art is important for any city, especially Ashland. In this time of limited resources,
it is difficult for the city to acquire art, so Mr. Haines proposal to have the tree sculpture
donated as a gift is a generous overture., Public Art enhances and beautifies the City and
enriches all of our lives.
Thank you for considering this letter.
Sincerely,
/u-u~~
;:2, -1 Ef/
I.SlJs'a~"y~t.~s - PI~'as'e" sa~~_the_~~~tew~r '." ~shlan~_~ 'tn:~~!.:<,:""
:
...,
", '," """j
, :P~9,,~."~.j
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Oriana Spratt <oriana.spratt@charter.net>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/25/049:31 PM
Please, save the 'Gateway to Ashland' tree!
Hello,
I was very upset to find out about the proposed removal of an alder
tree that serves as the gateway to Ashland, next to the creek and
across from Brothers Restaurant. Why did the issue not get more
publicity before the belatedly announced "public hearing?" The
approach to Ashland on 99 from the north is so much more special than
from the south--in large part, just because of that tree. Every
Ashlander I have talked to about this issue is outraged at the idea of
allowing it to be chopped down.
To replace a large, healthy tree that has served for decades as a
living, welcoming symbol of Ashland's special beauty with a SCULPTURE
is a joke! Please, if you approve it's removal you (and all of us who
pride ourselves on Ashland's reverence for nature) will have to live
with that forever...don't do it! I hope it is not too late to save it.
Please let me know when and where I can appear to express my opinion
where it will matter.
Oriana Spratt
482-1803
~1~
ill
l.1.: