HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1207 Council Mtg Packet
Council Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA Cl-IRISTENSEN
CITY RECORDER
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDCjE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL 'CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2004.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1 . Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to City of Ashland Finance Department.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.' Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
PUBLIC HEAR'N~~Tes~~;:l~i~tesu;!s~nless it is the subject of a
Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent
meeting.)
1. Public Hearing on an Appeal of an Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Construct a Home
in Excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area at 150 Church Street.
2. Public Hearing and First reading of "An Ordinance Withdrawing an Annexed Area from
Ja,ckson County Fire District No.5 (Ely Schiess and Krista Johnson, 3151 East Main Street
Annexation )."
VII.
PUBLIIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for
Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number
of individuals wishing to speak.)
VIII.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
IX.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
(None)
C'()lJNCILMEETINCjS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISrr 'flU: (Try OF ASHLAND'S \VliB SITE AT \\(\V\V.ASIJljAND.OR.US
\
'~,
X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land
Use Ordinance, Regarding Minimum Densities in Multi Family Zoning Districts."
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held
in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on November 2,2004, and Mayoral Proclamation."
XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS:
XII. ADJOURNMENT:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrcmgements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COlJNCILMEETINC,S ARI:: BROADCAS'r LIVE ON CIIANNEL, 9
VlSIT THE en'y' OF ASIJL,AND'S \VEB SrrE A'r \V\V\V.ASIJL.ANJ).OR.US
---~---~_.._...,._._------~-----~----,_._---_._-------._-- -
r~'
ASHLAND CJ'fY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 16.2004
PAGE lof6
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 16,2004,7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 2 and Executive Meeting Minutes of November 2,
2004 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Announcelnent of Award of"EI Pipila de Plata" to Senora Chela Kocks.
Mayor DeBoer presented Senora Chela Kocks the "Pipila de Plata" Award. It was noted that this was a very
significant award and this was the first time it had been given to a foreign citizen. Several individuals,
including 2 exchange students from Guanajuato, addressed the Council and shared their sentiments of Senora
Kocks.
2. Presentation of Tree of the Year.
Tree Commissioner Bryan Holley and Councilor Hartzell, Council Liaison to the Tree Commission,
announced the Monterey Cypress Tree located at 407 Scenic Drive as Ashland's 17th Tree of the Year. The
other 4 nominf~es were recognized and Mr. Holley thanked all those involved in the process. It was noted that
the nomination process had changed and citizens could now send their nominations to Assistant Planner Amy
Anderson throughout the year.
3. Mayor's Proclamation of the month of November as National Alzheimer's Disease Month.
Proclamation was read aloud.
4. Charter Review Committee Update to Council.
John Enders, Chair of the Charter Review Committee explained that the Committee had been reviewing the
current City Charter and have determined that it requires substantial revision. He explained that they are now
in the process of gathering information and have contacted a Charter Expert who is assisting the Committee
with their work. Some of the items contained in the existing Charter that the Committee might propose
changing are: the City's strong Mayor form of government, the election of the City Recorder and Municipal
Judge and thf~ir compensation, the election of Parks Commissioners, the number of Council members,
consideration of how the City deals with annexations, and the powers of the Planning Commission. Mr.
Enders explained how the Committee will solicit public input and stated they intend to have the proposed
changes ready for Council review by June 2005.
Commissioner Carole Wheeldon stated that the City Charter could not be changed without the vote of the
people, and that they would like to have this issue placed on the September 2005 ballot. It was clarified that
the Commission was following the Oregon Model Charter, but would incorporate the items that make
Ashland unique.
ASHIJ\ND CfTY COUNCTLMEETINe]
NOVEI'v1BER 16~ 2()()4
PAGE 2 of6
Mr. Enders stated that the Commission had primarily been dealing with process issues, but now that those are
set, they were hoping that the public would become more engaged in the process. It was noted that the Charter
Review Committee meetings are held on the first and third Thursdays of every month in the Council
Chambers, and the public is encouraged to attend. In addition, all of the meeting communication is posted on
the City's website, including a citizen survey on the Charter Review.
Mayor DeBoer read a letter from the Wilsonville City Recorder acknowledging Ashland City Recorder
Barbara Christensen's accomplishments.
(
Mayor DeBoer noted that there were three vacancies on the Citizens' Budget Committee and urged anyone
interested to submit an application to the City Recorder's Office.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
Councilor JacksonIMorrison mIs to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on the Modification of Prior Year CDBG Action Plans and Reprol~ramming of
Program Income.
Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman stated that the City Council had previously held a Public
Hearing on the allocation of CDBG funds at the October 19th Council Meeting and at that time: approved the
allocation of $274,000 to RVCDC for the acquisition of property to construct 6 affordable housing units and
also determined that ACL T could retain $80,000 in previously awarded CDBG funds for the acquisition of
property located at 39 Garfield Street for the development of two affordable housing units. Mr. Goldman
clarified that the modification of past action plans was a requirement of the CDBG Program and provides the
public an opportunity to comment on the action plan that is presented.
Public Hearing Open: 7:54 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:54 p.m.
Councilor JacksonlHartzell mIs to approve the modification of the prior years CDBG Action Plan as
presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion pass~.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Approval of a Land Partition Plat and Creation of a Deed Restriction in Preparation of the Sale of
City of Ashland Owned Property at Strawberry Lane and Westwood Street.
Public Works Director Paula Brown stated the subdivision of land had already gone through and clarified that
the Deed Restriction was requested by the neighbors to further ensure conformance with neighborhood
development and construction standards.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin stated that the proposed restrictions were not as
extensive as those placed on the adjoining subdivisions and would not affect the value of the property or its
ability to be sold. Mr. McLaughlin clarified that most of the deed restrictions are regulated at some level by
..._--~-~_._---_._-_._.__._.__...__._--_._-_._._-_.__.----- _.__.~._..._~--- -----_. _..._.._--~._---~--_.-. -
ASHLj\ND CrfY COlTNCTLMEETTNG
NOVEIv1BER 16~ 2004
PAGE 3 of6
the Ashland Municipal Code, but that some go beyond the Code and reflect a higher standard that is similar to
the conditions of the surrounding neighborhood. It was noted that the restriction regarding the fire sprinkler
system was required as a condition of approval for the partition. It was clarified that in order to change a
condition of approval, it would need to go before the Planning Commission, but to change the deed
restrictions would require action by the Council.
Council discussed whether to keep the requirements contained in the proposed Deed Restrictions. It was
suggested that the Council not restate in the deed what was already a condition of approval and concern was
raised regarding the wording of the recreational vehicle restriction. Additional comment was made voicing
support for the redundancy for the reason that placing the restrictions in the deed would make it very clear
what was required and potential owners would be notified up front of the conditions. Mr. McLaughlin
clarified that that the Council had the option to not place any additional restrictions on the property.
Councilor Hearn/Morrison mls to approve the land partition plat and attached deed restriction for the
Mayor's sign:ature. DISCUSSION: Mr. McLaughlin stated that he believed it would be very difficult to
find merit to change the deed restrictions. V oice Vote: aU AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor AInaroticolHartzell mls to sell the properties and reimburse City funds for prior costs.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
2. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report.
Electric and Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderscheid explained that this report covered the .first
quarter of the fiscal year and noted that Staff had revised the format of the report to provide more and
improved information. Mr. Wanderscheid stated the numbers for cable modem and cable tv looked good, and
stated that the City was well on its way to exceeding their target. Mr. Wanderscheid gave a brief explanation
of the information contained in the report and noted that although the new report did not contain a graph on
the number of high speed data and bulk tv accounts, Staff would report any significant changes in this area in
subsequent reports.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained why they choose to include the various charts contained in the
report. He stated the focus of 3 of the 6 charts was on cash flow and noted the importance of setting aside
sufficient funds to make their $800,000 debt service payment, which is due in July 2005. Mr. Tuneberg gave
a brief explanation of the data contained in each chart and clarified how to analyze the charts. He also noted
that presently, the plan did not translate will into each month, but added that Staff was gathering the necessary
information to determine what the appropriate "curve" should be.
Mr. Wandersc:heid clarified that AFN's monthly expenses were approximately $218,000, although it varied
from month to month. He also mentioned that Staff could prepare a cumulative revenue chart in future
reports if Council desired. Mr. Wanderscheid also pointed out that Staff had budgeted for a rate increase
scheduled for the end of the year, and stated that it would take two months before they would see revenue
generated frorn the increase.
Mr. Tuneberg noted that the first quarter of the fiscal year was not typically a growth quarter and that it was
difficult to hit a positive ratio based on the first few months. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified that AFN rates and
accounts were: up compared to this time last year and added that AFN had more customers now than it has
ever had. He :also stated that AFN would easily meet its goals for this year and would probably exceed them.
Council discussed whether different charts would be beneficial in future reports. Suggestion was made to
provide a cornparison chart for the number of AFN accounts in the previous year. Comment was made
voicing support for the current format of the report. Mr. Wanderscheid mentioned that they could provide
ASlfLAND CITY COUNCIL 1\1EETINey
NOVF~MBER 16~ 2004
PAGE 4 of6
the graphs in a rolling 12 month period format. It was noted that this report would be presented to the
Advisory Committee and that they might recommend different measures as well.
3. Acceptance of Audit Committee Report and the June 30, 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg identified the critical pages in the Financial Report, including the Auditor's
Opinion contained on page 1 and the Management Discussion and Analysis on pages 3 through 13. Mr.
Tuneberg pointed out that the Audit Firm found no material issues that needed to be corrected, and
determined that the Financial Report accurately represented the financial status of the City. Mr. Tuneberg
stated that from year to year the City's assets had remained constant, and stated that this was a sign of
stability in our organization. He stated the City was sitting well in regards to its cash balances, but noted there
were some funds that needed more attention, including the Street and Airport Funds. Mr. Tuneberg noted
that revisiting the fund balances for each individual fund was a Council Goal, and thanked ail those involved
for their help in preparing the report.
Councilor Morrison/Jackson mls to accept the Audit Committee Report and the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as presented. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use
Ordinance, Regarding Minimum Densities in Multi Family Zoning Districts."
Community Development Director John McLaughlin noted that a Public Hearing was held at the last Council
Meeting, and noted that Council had requested one minor change to the Ordinance regarding the clarification
of replacement pf single family homes due to fire or natural hazards.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified that under 18.24.040, 2-C, the term "exempt" would apply as long as the
conditional uses were in place. He also clarified that under 18.24.040, 2-F, Staff used the language "may"
instead of "shall be" on purpose in order to allow some flexibility. Suggestion was made to change the
wording in 18.24.040, 2-F to "riparian areas" instead of "land drainages". Comment was tnade that the
Ordinance should stay with the broader term of "land drainages". Recommendation was nlade to revise
number 1 under 18.28.040, to read "The density of the development, including the density gained through
bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section." Mr. McLaughlin noted that this
wording was also contained under Section 2, and would need to be changed there as well.
Councilor Jackson/Amarotico mls to approve the first reading and move to second readhlg, including
the grammatical change to 18.28.040 Sections 1 and 2. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Amarotico,
Laws, Jackson, Morrison, and Hearn, Yes. Motion Passed.
2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Vacating a Public Alley between Oregon Street and
Madrone Street."
Councilor Jackson/Morrison mls to approve Ordinance #2912. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Morrison,
Jackson, Hartzell, Amarotico, and Laws, Yes. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Proposed resolution from Councilor Don Laws regarding Veterans' Day Flags.
Hal Jamison/60 Golden Spike/Spoke in opposition to the proposed resolution. Mr. Jamison voiced his
concern with the last sentence in the resolution, which read that the individuals who vandalized the flag
- - ---------- ---- ---------- ~----~ ---------- -- -
ASHLAND CITY COlJNCILMEETING
NOVEl"v1BER 16. 2004
PAGE 5 of6
holders should "experience a sense of shame and humiliation". Mr. Jamison stated that the American flag
not only symbolized America and its soldiers, but could also been seen as approval of any war that the
government has engaged in. Mr. Jamison stated that the Council should not assume what motivated the
persons who committed this act and did not feel that the proposed resolution reflected the feelings of all of
Ashland's citizens.
Councilor Laws read the Resolution aloud and explained his motivations for bringing this issue to the Council.
Council discussed possible changes to the language of the proposed resolution and Councilor Laws stated he
would welcome any such changes by the Council. Council agreed that the acts committed by the vandals
were shameful,. however some disagreed that passing the resolution was the best way to deal with the issue of
civil disobedience. Comment was made that the Council should not dignify the vandalism by passing such a
resolution. Additional comment was made that the Council should not pass this resolution without knowing
what motivated those who committed the crime. Council further discussed if a resolution was the correct tool
to deal with this issue.
Mayor DeBoer stated that he was offended by the acts of vandalism and urged anyone who might have
information on this case to come forward and report it to the police.
Councilor HE~arnlLaws m/s to approve Resolution #2004-38, with the change of removing "and
humiliation" 1from the last sentence of Section 1. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Hearn, and Laws,
Yes. Councilor Morrison, Amarotico and Hartzell, No. Mayor DeBoer, Yes. Motion passed 4-3.
2. Billings Golf Course Update
City Attorney Mike Franell informed the Council that Jackson County had met to discuss this issue and
although he had not been able to confirm, he believed that the County had made an interpretation of their Code
to determine that the regulations regarding the Greenway District did not apply to the land in question. Mr.
Franell stated that it could be possible for the City to interpret the County's decision as a land use action, and
that it could be possible to make an appeal to LUBA. He further stated that the County's interpretation should
not have a substantial affect with this particular property because the property was still subject to the
regulation that states that anything done would need to be consistent with the Greenway Plan.
Council encouraged Staff to gather more details on this project and report to Council. on their potential
options.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s for Staff to bring back information sufficient for describing .the
options for Council to respond to the County's decisions regarding the Billings Gold Course, and to do
so in a timely manner. DISCUSSION: Suggestion was made for the Council to be provided with
information rc~garding the design of the golf course and how it's use would affect the greenway area.
Suggestion was made for Council to conduct a tour of the site.
Councilor Hurtzell/ Amarotico mls to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
It was noted that a land use application had not yet been filed. Comment was made that given the 120-day
period, it was prudent for the Council to inform themselves of their options. Mr. Franell clarified that the
County had identified the greenway land as an "area of special concern", which is an actual overlay zone that
the County has within their ordinances. He also clarified that an "area of mutual interest" is an area that the
City and the County have agreed to work cooperatively together on. Councilor Jackson called for the question.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
A SllIj\ ND crry COUN(TLMl~ETrNCJ
NOVEMBER 16. 2004
PAGE 6 of6
Mayor DeBoer noted there was a Study Session scheduled for Wednesday, November 17. Topics of
discussion would include the Croman Property Masterplan and Measure 37 Implementation.
Mayor DeBoer also noted that there was a Special Meeting scheduled for November 30th to implement
procedure for Measure 37.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at: 10:09 p.m.
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Ge
Governnlent Finance Officers Association
203 North laSalle Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, Hlinois 60601 - 1 2 10
312.977.9700 fax: 312.977.4806
November 12, 2004
Teh Honorable Alan DeBoer
Mayor
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Mayor DeBoer:
I am pleased to notify you that City of Ashland, Oregon has received the Distinguished Budget
Presentation Award for the current fiscal year from the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA). This award is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting
and represents a significant achievement by your organization.
When a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is granted to an entity, a Certificate of
Recognition for Budget Presentation is also presented to the individual or department designated
as being primarily responsible for its having achieved the award. This has been presented to:
Finance Department
W e hop(~ you will arrange for a formal public presentation of the award, and that
appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement. A press release is
enclosedl for your use.
We appreciate your participation in GFOA's Budget Awards Program. Through your
example, we hope that other entities will be encouraged to achieve excellence in
budgeting.
Sincerely,
4qL4..:f .zR~
Stephen J. Gauthier, Director
Technical Services Center
Enclosure
www. gfoa. org
~
Government Finance Officers Association
203 North laSalle Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601- 12 10
312.977.9700 fax: 312.977.4806
November 12,2004
PRESS RELEASE
For Further Information Contact
Stephen J. Gauthier (312) 977-9700
*************************************************************************************
Chicago--The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA)
is pleased to announce that City of Ashland, Oregon has received the GFOA's Distinguished
Budget Presentation A ward for its budget.
The award represents a significant achievement by the entity. It reflects the commitment of the
governing body and staff to meeting the highest principles of governmental budgeting. In order to
receive the budget award, the entity had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective
budget presentation. These guidelines are designed to assess how well an entity's budget serves as:
. a policy document
. a financial plan
. an operations guide
. a communications device
Budget documents must be rated "proficient" in all four categories to receive the award.
When a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is granted to an entity, a Certificate of
Recognition for Budget Presentation is also presented to the illdividual or department designated as
being primarily responsible for its having achieved the award. This has been presented to Finance
Department.
Since the inception of the GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards Program in 1984,
approximately 900 entities have received the Award. Award recipients have pioneered efforts to
improve the quality of budgeting and provide an excellent example for other governments
throughout North America.
The Government Finance Officers Association is a nonprofit professional association
serving 14,000 government finance professionals throughout North America. The
GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards Program is the only national awards
program in governmental budgeting.
www.gfoa.org
c:
o
.-
+J
nJ
.-
U
o
'"
<
'"
'- nJ
~-c
._ nJ
~c:
oa
~-c
c: c:
nJ nJ
c: '"
.- GJ
U-+J
+J nJ
c:+J
GJ~
e-c
c: GJ
'- .~
GJ c:
~:)
~GJ
GJ'5
.r:. "l-
I- 0
.~
~
....
tl
t
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Q
;J
=
=
o
~
z
o s
.....
~
~
o
u
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
c:
...., 0
c: C)
CI) CI)
E '-
...., 0
'- ...
.ea -c
c. c:
CI) ea
C :E
CI) tn
o c::c
c: \t-
ea 0
c:
u: ~
--
(.)
.... a... '\1-
~ 't ~ a a
E"'S~~~
~ .S ~ ~ ~
i-~~~
~a~~a
'\I ~ ~ ~~
"'S gE ~ ~f~
C) ....
~ .::~.
~.5 ~ ~ """'
~ ~ ~ ~ t
~ \i '\I ~ ....
~~E~~
~ ~~t
~~ .....~
.~~ ~~
~ ~ '\I '\I
.!..2 ;t"'S ~
1: ~ ~ .~ 1
~..::a"""~
~ ~ '\I.I..l.ti
;t ~ ... ...
~.~1 ~
~ ~ ~~ e
;I.....:: ~ E
~ ~.~ ~ ~
a...-2Q~s
~... ~.~ li()
~a~~'\l
.1:) ~ a ....
.~ ~.... ~-2
~.! ~ ~ ...
r.~ ~ ~ a
~a~tl
~ ~ .t: -r ~ ..:3
~E~~~~
a~""~ ~i
~C--' ~ i'~ a
~ '\l E'it ~...
\J ~ f: ~.~ E
'\l ~ '\I'~ t~ ~
~.... ~.~ ~
~ ~ ~Q ~
~
a...
~
.~
cS
~
.~
~
~
~
o
o
N
N"'
~
$-4
Q)
J:;J
S
Q)
:>
Z
~
~
CITY COUNCIL STUD\r SESSION
NOVEl\1BER. 17, 2004
PAGE 1 of2
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, November 17,2004 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor DeBoer called the Study Session to order at 12:11 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ATTENDANCE:
Councilor Amarotico,.Hartzell, Jackson and Morrison were present.
Councilor Laws and Hearn were absent.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mike Franell, Community Development Director John
McLaughlin and Finance Director Lee Tuneberg were also present.
1. Measure 37 Implementation
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained that the purpose of the Study Session was to discuss the
implementation of Measure 37. He stated that the City would need to move quickly in establishing an
ordinance and noted that a Special Meeting to adopt the ordinance would be held on November 30th,
2004.
City Attorney Mike Franell stated that he would need the Council's direction on the following issues:
· Establish a Claims Procedure Ordinance
Mr. Franell explained that Measure 37 did not contained a clear defmition of what constituted a valid
claim and stated that most jurisdictions were putting their own procedures in place to help resolve these
ambiguities. ~M. Franell requested that the Council discuss what information they would like to require
when submitting a claim. Council suggested that the following information be required: Name, Address,
Regulation the: owner is contesting, Amount of the claim, Preliminary Title Report, Date property was
purchased, and a Copy of the Property Deed.
Council discussed whether they should require a formal appraisal to be included as well. Mr. Franell
stated that there was a risk in requiring the appraisal at the time of filing, and suggested that the Council
not include this in their requirements as it could open the City up to additional lawsuits. Suggestion was
made for the City to ask, but not require, that the claimant include a calculation of the property value and
an explanation of how that number was determined.
· Determinati.r}n of Claim Validity
Mr. Franell clarified that Measure 37 indicates that only the governing body could make the
determination of claim validity. He also stated that many of the jurisdictions were bifurcating the process,
and questioned if the Council would like the Planning Department or the Administration Department to
determine the claim validity. Council agreed that both the Planning and Legal Departments should be
involved in de:termining whether a claim was valid. Suggestion was made for the City Administrator to
deal with the issue of claim validity. Council discussed at what point they would want to become
involved in the process. Suggestion was made for Staff to weed out the frivolous claims that might not
need to come to Council. Mr. Franell clarified that Staff would keep the Council informed of all claims
that are filed and clarified that the issue of compensation vs. waiver would definitely involve the Council.
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
NOVEl\lBER 17, 2004
PAfIE 2 of 2
· Implementation of Claim Processing Fees
Mr. Franell explained that the Council needed to determine whether they would like to charge a fee for
processing the claims. He explained that some jurisdictions will not required any fees, others will require
a payment for all claims and some have determined that they will keep track of the costs and issue a bill
only if the claim is found invalid. Mr. Franell stated that Measure 37 would produce a significant cost on
local jurisdictions and stated that the City had no Staff time budgeted for this Measure.
Council discussed charging a fee for Staff time. Mr. Franell stated that because the City did not have
experience with how much Staff time these cases would require, it might be difficult to determine a flat
fee. Suggestion was made for the City to require an initial deposit and then track Staff time and charge
appropriately. Comment was made that Staff should inform the claimant up front of what the expected
costs would be.
· Devaluation of Surrounding Properties
Mr. Franell stated that some jurisdictions have included a provision in their ordinance, which states that
the claimant will be held responsible for the devaluation of surrounding properties. He stated that the
City could include in its ordinance a cause of action that would provide the opportunity for surrounding
properties owners to sue the claimant for a loss in their property value. Council agreed that they would
like to include a cause of action in the ordinance.
· Procedure for Waiving Regulation~
Mr. Franell stated that the City would need to set up its procedures for waiving the regulations. He stated
that the City had the option of not implementing a rule for a specific property and that a waiver could be
issued to the property owner. He clarified that the waiver would be specific to the property owner and
would not be transferable if the property were sold.
Mr. Franell stated that the land use application should have to go through the process and be denied
before a claim could be filed. Also, the claimant should have to determine which regulation they would
like a waiver on and allow the Council the opportunity to waive it before a claim could be filed. Council
questioned if there could be some sort of penalty if the applicant did not follow through with their
building plans after a regulation was waived.
2. Topics for Issue Paper - Croman Propertv Masterplan
There was not enough time to address this issue. It was noted that Council could submit their comments
to Staff via email.
ADJOURNED: Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
October 21st, 2004
Regular Minutes'
Roll Call
Members presE:nt:
Council Liaison:'
Staff:
RVTD liaison:
High schoollia:ison:
Chair Lexi Delgado Julia Sommer
Vice Chair Brad Knickerbocker Dylan Robbins
David Chapman (absent) Tracy Bungay (absent)
John Morrison
Derek Severson, Assistant Planner
Paige West, R VTD/TDM Planner (late)
Cory Lescher
Tom Marvin (late)
John Hinke
Tom Cook, APD Officer
SOU liaison:
None assigned
Call to Order
Delgado called lthe meeting to order at 5: 17 p.m.
ADDroval of Minutes SeDtember 16th. 2004
Severson clarified that the BTA request for funding was $750 oer elementarv school, and that last year the Bicycle
& Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Commissions had each pledged $1500 to cover the four elementary schools in
Ashland. He noted that Chapman would be approaching the Traffic Safety Commission to ask for similar slipport
from them at their next meeting, and that he had contacted the BT A and expressed the commission's general support
but requested the additional details (number of schools, time line and specific action items) discussed in last month's
minutes. He confirmed that when additional information was available, hopefully next month, the matter would
come back to the commission with further detail.
The minutes of' September 16, 2004 were approved as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Public Forum,
New members Julia Sommer and John Hinke were introduced to the commission.
Nevada Streeet LID Discussion
Severson noted that he had verified with Public Works and Engineering, and that the Nevada Street LID public
hearing had aln:ady occurred before the City Council and has been closed. He explained that the Council had made
a decision, and Engineering staff had moved forward. He emphasized that the design is not at a stage where further
changes can be considered and there is no mechanism by which recommendations can be made to the Council. He
added that Eng:ineering' had submitted the final designs to a consulting engineering fIrm and was waiting for final
construction plans to come back any time.
Art Bullock/7911 Glendower St noted that he wanted commissioners to be aware that their recommendations from
last January addressing the entrance to the bike path at Helman and Nevada had not been incorporated into the fmal
design.
Car Free Dav EXDenditures
Severson noted that there were two components to this item. First, that expenditures had been made by
subcommittee members and come back to the city for payment without proper documentation. He explained that for
future referenct:, citY policy required that expenditures be made by a city employee so that proper purchase orders
and account numbers could be assigned and proper payables procedures followed. He asked that any future
expenditures bt: handled through him. Second, he noted that one expenditure ($225 for signage on R VTD buses)
had also come hack from the B~ Swap from last April. He explained that because this item was from a previous
fiscal year that the city could not' make payment without authorization by vote of the commission to payout of this
year's budget. Severson briefly discussed the current budget and distributed a report of expenditures so far for the
fiscal year, and asked if members were willing k> pay for this expenditure.
2004-J02J_Bike Min
Page J of3
RobbinslMarvin m/s to pay $225 to The Sticker Dude for Bike Swap signage on RVTD buses from last spring
out of this year's program funds budget. Discussion: West noted that the signs were reus~lble, and that
RVTD would contribute some funding to the next Bike Swap to offset this expense. Voice vote: All AYES.
Motion passed.
Draft Downtown Plan Uodate - Bike Rack Standards
Severson noted that as discussed in the memo, the Downtown Plan is being given priority by the City Council and
Planning Staff will be moving forward with public process leading to the ultimate adoption of a new Downtown
Plan. He advised that revisions have already occurred to the meeting dates schedule in the memo, and that he would
make members aware when an updated schedule was available.
He further explained that a specific element of the public process is planned to address downtown street furniture,
which will include bicycle racks. Rather than proceeding with commission discussions of that issue, he advised
members to participate in that element of the prospect to insure public involvement, continuity of elements within
the downtown, and ultimate inclusion within the plan. West stated that she could provide vendor information for
downtown furniture elements for consideration in that discussion.
Marvin suggested looking at the installation of temporary bicycle lanes through the downtown while the Downtown
Plan update is in progress. There was lengthy discussion on the feasibility of this item, with concenlS noted due to
cost and the possibility for creating disruption that would lead to increased objections to the plan proposals during
the public process.
Delgado and Knickerbocker agreed to serve as commission liaisons to the Downtown Plan update meetings.
Severson stated that he would keep members up to date about the process and meeting dates.
JPR Underwritina
Severson noted materials in packet, stated that this had been an item brought forth by former member Jack
Christman. Delgado questioned if there was interest in pursuing it further or anyone willing to champion the item.
Members discussed the fact that a once a week Saturday spot during Rhythm & News was $56/month or $720 per
year and noted the length and constraints on the 3-sentence spots. Members questioned whether use of public
service announcements, news items, and interviews might be more effective and less costly; members also
questioned whether any reduced cost might be arranged with JPR due to the nature of the commission. Hinke
agreed to follow up and report back next month.
Bike Shoo Outreach/Community Relations
Robbins noted that he had made contact, and that there was interest on the part of the bike shops in b(:ing kept up to
date on commission work. Severson stated that all shops would be added to mailing list to receivle agendas and
minutes. It was also suggested that Siskiyou Velo and the Southern Oregon Mountain Biking Association be added
to this list.
There was discussion of who had jurisdiction for the trail system in the watershed. It was noted that while the city
may not have specified jurisdiction, concerns could be brought to the commission and passed on to the appropriate
body with commission support.
Creatina a Calendar
Members discussed this as an on-going item to include city meetings and holidays, international events like Car Free
Day and Walk to School Day, SaMBA and Siskiyou Velo events, RVTD items, and anything el~e of interest to the
walking and cycling community. Severson noted that he would check into the possibility of creating a separate
internet calendar to be linked off of the City's website just for the commission.
Who Rides?
It was noted that Knickerbocker had one article complete, and that a copy had been distributed. Delgado noted that
she was nearly done with another item that would be distributed shortly.
This project was briefly explained to the new members, and it was noted that the Sentient Times had agreed to
publish these profile pieces. The possibility of using other media for distribution was also discussed. There was
2004-J02J_Bike Min
Page 2 of3
also a suggestion that all pieces be combined to create a book that could be sold as a fund-raising item at the Bike
Swap. West stated that it would be fairly easy to create small posters for display in R VTD buses. Members
discussed former commission chair John Baxter and John and Dot Fisher-Smith as other potential profiles.
Subcommittee ReDorts
Robbins noted that he now had the SprocKids educational materials and would be reviewing them for ideas on how
to implement part or all of the program in local schools. He invited other members to review the materials and
provide input. l\.1embers discussed this as a possible senior project.
New Busines:!
Severson reminded members of the Grand Opening Celebration for the Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street
redesign. He added that the festivities would be occurring between 4 and 5 on Friday, October 220d at the Fire
Station.
There was discussion of last month's Car Free Day. Delgado noted that the cards printed did not seem to have
generated enough return to justify their use in the future. West noted that RVTD use was up 23% on the event day,
and that bikes on buses had increased 34%. She stated that pledge card monitoring she did in Medford indicated that
the event had rc~sulted in a reduction of 100,000 vehicle miles being traveled. Members suggested a debriefing and
discussion of ideas for next year at the November meeting. There was also interest expressed.in closing the
downtown for next year's event. Severson stated that he would follow up on the feasibility of such a closure and
report back next month.
Marvin suggested looking at city air quality monitoring for the Siskiyou Boulevard corridor. Morrison discussed air
quality valley-wide noting that it falls under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Environmental Quality, and
that non-diesel vehicles less than twenty years old within the valley air quality management area must pass
emissions testing in order to renew licensing every two years. He noted that while there are some site-specific
monitoring stations in Medford, there was nothing in Ashland to his knowledge. Marvin requested that staff look
into the possibility of getting this equipment in Ashland.
West encourag1ed anyone interested to attend the next meeting of the Jackson County Bicycle Advisory Committee
on November 8th at 4:00 in the Carpenter Room of the new library in Medford.
Aaenda Item:s for Next Month
Bicycle Transportation Alliance bike safety funding request and Traffic Safety Commission interest in Partnering
(with more details from BTA requested - Seyerson and Chapman); Car Free Day debriefmg; additional info on JPR
underwriting (Hinke); Staff to report back on numerous follow up items...
Adiournmen1t
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.rn.
Next Meeting: Thursday, November 18th, 2004
2004-J02J_Bike Min
Page 3 of3
e
..
CITY UF
ASHLAND
Minutes
Conservation Commission
10/27/04
These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by ConselVation Commission at the
December 1, 2004 ConselVation Commission Meeting.
October 27,2004- 7:00 p.m.
Community Development Building
51 Winburn Way
Ashland
CALL TO OR[)ER
Chairperson, Ah~x Amarotico, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Community Development
Building.
ROLL CALL
Attendees: Charles Bennett, Carol Carlson, Russ Chapman, Ross Finney, Jim Hartman, Joanne
Krippaehne, and Paige Prewett. Bruce Moats was absent.
City Council Liaison: Alex Amarotico
Staff Liaison: Lclrry Giardina
Student Liaison: Heidi Hubert was not present
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson, Alex Amarotico asked for an approval of the September 22, 2004 minutes.
Commissioner Chapman moved to approve the minutes as written and Commissioner Carlson seconded
the motion.
Voice vote: lall Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
The minutes of the Conservation Commission Meeting of September 22,2004 were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
Risa Buck/798 Oak St., Kate Brandy 332 Harrison St.-spoke in favor of water catchments and recycling.
Ms. Brandy asked for clarification about the activities of the Conservation Commission and the members
explained different projects/functions/duties the Commission achieves along with reading the mission
statement, whic:h in part promotes education and advocates practices of conservation in regards to
resources.
Commission mlembers explained a few of the projects that the Commission has been able to accomplish
including underwriting a program, Living on Earth, promoting awareness of renewable energy through
Bonneville Power, sponsor for Earth Day, worked with City Council on resolutions, worked with
Conservation Staff on Solar Homes Tour, and Green Business Program outreach.
CC Minutes 10 27 04
Page 1 of 3
Ms. Brandy wondered if the Commission would help support an education element of water cSltchment with
an incentive program through the City of Ashland. The members discussed different ways/options to better
support educating the public about water catchment and also discussed other methods used by different
cities.
Mr. Giardina reminded the members and guests that the Earth Advantage Program includes an element
where people could choose water catchment as an optional measure. Builders and designers are also
invited to participate in the Earth Advantage workshops where options are discussed ahead of building.
Commissioner Prewett asked for this subject to remain on the agenda. Commissioner Carlson would like
to do some research on swales in construction and report back to the Commission. Commissioner
Krippaehne remarked about the Portland Offices of Sustainable Development being a tremendous
resource because they encourage alternative construction and meter storm water.
The members discussed the importance of using the technology available to explore alternatives, and the
possibility of inviting different employees from plumbing, conservation, and engineering to the next meeting.
Chairperson Amarotico asked for a placeholder on the next agenda for water catchment and all the
members thanked Ms. Buck and Ms. Brandy for their concerns and ongoing participation in water
catchment.
ASHLAND SANITARY & RECYCLING UPDATE:
Ashland Sanitary announced Lisa Black no longer works for Ashland Sanitary. Commissioner Chapman
introduced a guest speaker, Todd Hubbard from the recycling center in Clackamas. Mr. Hubbard explained
SP Recycling and Newsprint was owned by three publishers, and operates two mills, one in Dublin,
Georgia and one in Newberg. The Georgia mill is 100% recyclable and consumes 65 to 70 thousand tons
a month of newsprint. The Newberg mill is 48-53% recyclable.
The members discussed efficiency of recycling and the processes for recycling paper, steel, aluminum,
cardboard and glass. Mr. Hubbard reported 1 }-2% of 10-11 thousand tons of trash collected is
unmarketable. Ashland recycles around 250 tons out of the 10-11 thousand collected. SP distributes 68%
to sustain the mills and the rest is exported. They generate enough electricity to run their mill and furnish
the City of Newberg.
The Commission members thanked Mr. Hubbard for making himself available to the Commission and
taking the time to visit Ashland.
Commissioner Krippaehne moved to talk about the Conservation Commission Goals at the next scheduled
meeting and Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
OLD BUSINESS
None presented.
NEW BUSINESS
None presented.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
CC Minutes 10 27 04
Page 2 of 3
1. Historic: Conservation
Commis:sioner Krippaehne reported the Historic Committee would not be available to meet until
after the elections.
2. Education/Events
Commissioner Prewett requested the Commission talk about future tours and workshops at the
next mel~ting.
3. Green IBusiness
Mr. Giardina reported Shop and Cart is now a green business due to the conversion of their
refrigeration system.
COMMISSIOIN ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Risa Buck/7gB Oak St. addressed the Commission about downtown recycle containers and expressed
the desire to ask the Wilderness Charter School if they wanted to participate as a school project. The
members discussed the problems associated with recycled containers consistently contaminated, but
would like to revisit an event recycling project and will discuss it with the Commission goals.
Commission PrE~wett asked for support from the Conservation Commission for the annual Earth Day Event
and presented information concerning the event.
Commissioner Krippaehne moved to sponsor Earthday 2005 in the amount of $750.00. Commissioner
Hartman seconded the motion.
The member discussed the motion and anticipated events for Earthday.
Voice vote: .911 Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Prewett requested an update about the Climate Study at the request of Councilperson
Jackson. Mr. Giardina reported a new group of students with the SOU capstone project are working on the
Climate Study.
Commissioner Prewett announced the Bonneville Environmental Foundation is working on the brochures
that were partially funded by the Commission.
The next meeting will be held December 1, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary McClary, Assistant to
Electric Department
CC Minutes 1 0 ~~7 04
Page 3 of 3
i
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES .
OCTOBER 27, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Matt Small call(~d the meeting to order at 4:05 p.rn. at the Community Development and Engineering Services building
in the Siskiyou Room located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520.
CommissionElrs Present: Matt Small, Chair
Don Mackin
Liz Peck
Alice Hardesty
Faye Weisler
Kim Miller
Amy Korth (arrived at 4:35 p.m.)
Carol Voisin
Kate Jackson, present
Ryan Heihn, absent
Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
Absent Members:
Council Liaision:
SOU Liaison:
Staff Present:
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
WeislerlHardesty m/s to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2004 meeting. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
2. PUBUCFORUM
RICH ROHDE, Oregon Action, 124 Ohio, announced that the Jackson County Housing Coalition will be meeting on November
18, 2004 at 3:00 p.rn. at the Lausmann Annex (next door to Medford City Hall). Goldman will be giving a presentation on the
Housing Alliance.
AARON BENJAMIN, 7,40 Emigrant Creek Road, Ashland, said he recently had the opportunity to pose questions pertaining to
affordable housing to two candidates, Alan Bates and Peter Buckley. He reported their responses.
NANCY RICHARDSO~I, 93 California Street, noted that she was past chair of the Housing Commission and a member of the
Commission when they lobbied the Council for the Housing Specialist position. She is concerned that Goldman is not
spending his time on education, a major component of affordable housing. His time is being spent with Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) work. She said the position was supposed to be 100 percent non-CDBG. She would like
the Commission to look into talking to Staff and Council.
Richardson said several cities are allowing applicants who apply to build a certain number of units that are green or affordable
to be pushed to the top of pile for planning in order to encourage this type of development.
3. PROJECT UPDATES
HOUSING ALUANCE - Goldman attended the Housing Alliance meeting held October 6, 2004 in Portland. Three
items were >chosen by the Housing Alliance to take to the State Legislature.
1) Creation of a $5 million grant through the Oregon Housing Trust Fund that is not trust fund money
but could be allocated as a grant in a given year.
2) Proposal for establishment of those households making $10,000 a year and paying more than 20
percent of their income toward housing and are over 58 years old. The proposal is to expand the parameters
of the program to have it target all households regardless of age, and increase the amount of money they are
sp1ending on housing from 20 to 30 percent.
3) Making sure the term "housing" is in a committee at the State Legislature. Currently there is no
place where housing related bills can logically go.
4) Lifting of pre-emption on inclusionary zoning.
The real eS1tate transfer tax was an item that was vetoed because it was not strategically plausible in the upcoming
legislation. The Housing Department for the City of Portland is still looking at moving forward with the real estate
transfer tax. Goldman will continue to follow this.
4. OTHER BUSINESS FROM HOUSING COMMISSION MEMBERS - New and Miscellaneous Commissioner discussion items
not on the agenda
A. Housing Specialist's time - The Commissioners discussed where Goldman's time is currently being spent.
Goldman spends a large percentage of his time working with CDBG. WeislerlMiller m/s to reconunend to the Council that the
Housing Specialist's position be dedicated 100 percent to housing as intended in his job description, exclusive ofCDBG, other
than appropriate coordination with that program. Voice Vote: Unanimous.
Jackson said the Commission needs to look at the Housing Action Plan strategies identifying perhaps som~~ changes in
direction. It will go to the Council December 21 st and she suggested the above motion be highlighted as part of the report to
the Council.
The Commission decided the co-chairs and Jackson would write a letter of transmittal making a case for what the Commission
is trying to accomplish but how they are limited by Staffs limited time. Include the items outlined as priorities at the planning
session as items the Commission would like to implement and explain how everything is being held up because Goldman
simply does not have enough time. This is not a reflection on Goldman, but he can only do so much. The letter will be
brought back to the meeting on November 17th for review by the Commission. The Commissioners asked Goldman to show
how much time he spends on CDBG.
B. Miller said the Commission will hear a presentation from the Homeless Alliance next month. He encouraged
members to go to the website that talks about a permanent kind of homeless campground. It can be found at:
dignityvillage.org.
5. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Education - They looked at the Action Plan to determine which items would be appropriate to work on.
They expanded their scope from Education to Education, Advocacy and Outreach. The items identified in the Action Plan
were:
Strategy 1 D - Convening employers group
Strategy 4A - Development coordination efforts with non-profits
Strategy 5C - Public information program - Goldman's time is needed for this item
Strategy 6A - Public information program to build public and conununity support
B. Land Use - no report
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Fordyce Street Co-Housing Development - Melanie Mindlin and Theresa Jensen explained the co-housing
concept. Co-housing is a model of development that is a group of people that want to live in housing that creates a slightly
higher involvement with their neighbors than traditional development. They are currently working on such a project. Usually
a group of people get together to plan and design a conununity that they will live in. Affordability has been a goal of the group
from the beginning. The majority of the 13-unit housing project is planned to target median income. The state has set a limit
of $266,000 as affordable housing that should be available to purchase that is near median income. The state will give bond
assistance, lower interest rates, etc. Mindlin said their target prices would be considerably below that. Thc~y will be required
to build some housing that will fall within the new ordinance that establishes a certain percentage of affordable housing when
re-zoning or annexing. Those homes will fall within the 60 year equity limit. Their group is working on an equity limit clause
(deed restriction) but it will be tied to the percent of market value when purchased for the moderate priced housing.
Mindlin said the biggest issue is the 60 year equity limit. How is it financed? There are significant problems with this. The 60
year limit makes a lot of sense for rental housing. For-purchase housing works quite differently. There is an inherent conflict
with the goals established by the City (maintaining long-term affordable housing) and the goals of most of the funding agencies
(anti-poverty mandate). The funding agencies are looking to build people's financial and housing security through equity
growth in their homes. The Commissioners asked Mindlin to share her financing experience with the Housing Commission
once the project is complete.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - Community Development Block Grant Action Plan Modification
Staff EvaluationlReconunendation - Goldman said the Housing Commission has reviewed the proposals referenced in the
modification of the Action Plan as outlined in the Housing Commission memo dated October 27,2004 (see table 1). The
award selection has been made and now it is time to approve the allocation.
Public Hearing - No one came forth to speak.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2
MINUTES
OCTOBER 27, 2004
Commission Questions" discussion. and recommendation - WeislerlPeck m/s to approve the Staff Report. Voice Vote:
Unanimous
8. COMMISSION COORDINATION
A. CDBG Action Plan Modifications to Council Nov. 16th
B. Minimum Density to Planning Commission on Oct. 26th
The Planning Commission recommended at their meeting (vote: 6/2) to forward it to the City Council for
their approval.
C. Minimum Density to City Council on Nov. 2nd
D. Housing Priorities to Council on Dec. 21 st (Jackson handed out Council Goal 8.)
Jackson believes it is important to be thorough in the report to the Council. Note the items that could be acted upon this year
and the steps it will take with other items in order to make progress.
9. NOVEMBER 17,2004 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
Housing Priorities
Land Use/Living Map, identifying land and density issues
FinanceffrustFund - Peck said it was brought up that there is a resident of Ashland who has put together a
housing trust fund. Is it possible to tap into that resource? Or, participate on the Finance subcommittee?
Education! Advocacy
Ashland Homeless Alliance (AHA) presentation
10. ADJOURNME:NT - The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 27,2004
3
INTERVIEW WITH ILONA SWEETEN
Interviewer: Det. Sgt.Tighe OMeara
07-05-12/10:14 am
Case# 12-1688
Page 4
136 Q: Mm-hm.
137
138 A: Where it crosses. And, uh, we waited a little bit. I bought him breakfast and 1
139 said, "You go home and get some sleep and we'll see each other later." And I
140 need rest I am jet lagging I can not sleep the night and you were performing
141 and all my body is hurting because he really pressed me against the butt - he
142 was rude while doing this.
143
144 Q: Did he hold you down on the couch while he was having sex with you?
145
146 A: Yeah he, you know, he's - he spread me like I was a chicken. I could not
147 move and I said, "Gentler please - you are hurting me - it's hurting." And he
148 would say, "I know, that's how I want it." Something like this. I mean he
149 never did that before to me. And, uh, all I knew is that he was not himself. I
150 couldn't even blame him, you know, I -- he - he got his satisfaction. He didn't
151 care for me obviously, but I didn't even think about it. 1 thought, my God, the
152 main thing now is to take him out of this house, out of this place because if
153 people will know, I'm in big trouble.
154
155 Q: Sure.
156
157 A: So I bought him breakfast and I told him, "Go to your place and sleep and we
158 will meet in the evening or some time later." And I left him there. He didn't-
159 he was eating breakfast and I went to YMCA because I felt I was all filthy and
160 dirty and feeling very bad. I spent a few hours there. When I did return to the
161 garage - to the place with my friends, he was there searching through the
162 freezer in the garage. He was, uh, also clean and wet. He took a shower. He
163 came back without any permission. He took that shower. (Nick) the - the son
164 was still home, but he was listening to the music and he couldn't even hear
165 anybody. And he obviously slept again in the couch. He - he was rested. He
166 was clean and he was looking for food. Probably. I don't know what he was
167 doing by the freezer. And when they came he was not ex- he did not expect to
168 see me. He was acting really - really confused. I said, "What are you doing
169 here? I ask you to go home." And he said, uh, "I want to give you a massage."
170 I said, "Please, I don't need any massages. I'm coming from YMCA all I need
171 is sleep. I'm still in jet lag, I need rest. You took all my time and energy
172 during the night. Let me sleep." And he said, "I know what you need. You
173 need a rape." And he was quick, and he was strong. He just took my jeans and
174 underwear off and throw me on the bed. And he said, `9'm going to give you
175 dry ra- rape. You keep your hands up, look in to my eyes, and breathe." He
176 took his clothes off- off and he was above me like ready to - to do that. I was
177 scared because he was smoked and 1 could see it in his eyes. He was totally
178 crazy. And, uh, angry too he would rape - do it to me like I would be my ex-
179 husband or somebody else and he was out of his mind. And I did everything
180 he told me, put my hands up, breathed, looked in to his eyes and I kept saying,
__L_ _ _____ _____ __
Potential Conflict of Interest on Saladoff A lication
Pa e 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Cehearn@aol.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
12/6/20045:06:17 PM
[Council] Potential Conflict of Interest on Saladoff Application
Dear Colleagues:
My close friend and law partner (Susan Saladoff) and her husband (Rob
Saladoff) are on the Council agenda, starring as the applicants in tomorrow
night's land use appeal.
After consultation with our City Attorney, I believe I have a potential
conflict of intE~rest. Although I have no personal financial stake in Susan and
Rob's new home, this is really an application on which I would have
difficulty remaining unbiased, given my close personal relationship with the
applicants. Further, since Susan and I are law partners, and also own some property
together, economic symbiosis exists.
I will be asking you to excuse me on this one, and I just wanted to give
you a "heads up." See you (briefly) tomorrow night!
Chris Hearn
Attorney (Oregon Bar # 91182; California Bar # 134842)
Ashland City Council (Position # 6)
DAVIS, HEAI~N, SALADOFF & SMITH
A Profession,al Corporation
515 East Mai n Street
Ashland, Ore~gon 97520
(541) 482-3111; FAX (541) 488-4455
email: cehearn@aol.comorchearn@davishearn.com
websites: http://www.davisgilstrap.com/
http://www.ashland.or.us/Members.asp?Memberl 0=4008
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This email may contain information which is confidential or subject to the
attorney-client privilege. It is intended only for use by the individual to whom
it was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that the dissemination, distribution, forwarding or copying of this
communication, or the use of this information for any purpose, is strictly
prohibited by state and Federal privacy laws. If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately telephone our law firm at (541) 482-3111 and
delete this message from your system.
cc:
<ssaladoff@davishearn.com>
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Counc:il Communication
Public Hearing on an Appeal of an Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
Construct a Home in Excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area at 150
Church Street
Meeting Date: December 7, 2004
Department: Administration m
Contributing Dt~partments:
Approval: Gino Grimaldi )
Primary Staff Contact: John McLaughlin, 552-~
2043 mac@ashland.or.us ~
Secondary Staff Contact:
Statement:
The Planning Commission Hearings Board approved a request for a conditional use permit to
construct a new single family residence at 150 Church Street, having a proposed total floor area
in excess of the maximum permitted floor area (MPF A) allowed by ordinance. The MPF A for
the parcel is 3,249 sq. ft. while the request is for 3,557 sq. ft., or 9% greater than that allowed
outright. Thle land use ordinance allows for applications of up to 25% greater than the allowed
MPF A, through the conditional use permit process.
In September, 2003, the City Council adopted the Maximum House Size Ordinance for
Ashland's Historic Districts. The ordinance established size limits based upon lot size, with an
ultimate maximum size of 3,249 sq. ft. independent of the lot size. Included in the ordinance
was an oppoJrtunity for an applicant to exceed the allowed maximum size by up to 25% through
the utilization of the conditional use permit process. Essentially, this allows for relatively limited
exceptions to size limits when the hearing body determines that the conditions warrant the
exception.
The application was originally approved by the staff as a Type I and was called up for a hearing
by surrounding property owners.
The application was reviewed by the Historic Commission on September 8,2004 at which time
they concurred that the home exceeding the MPFA by 9% (approximately 300 sq. ft.) was
appropriate given the proposed design and surrounding neighborhood. The approval was by a 6-
1 vote.
The application was heard by the Planning Commission hearings board on October 12, 2004 at
which time they accepted testimony from proponents and opponents. The Hearings Board
approved th(~ request by a 2-1 vote.
A timely appeal was filed by Lew Nash, Kate Thill, Mark & Cici Brown, Jeff & Melody Jones,
and Jim Williams.
1
r~'
Background:
The record for the action is attached as part of this packet.
This is the first appeal to the Council of a request to exceed the MPFA, and the first opportunity
for the Council, as the legislative body that enacted the MPF A, to review a specific conditional
use permit application. The Historic and Planning Commissions have been reviewing the
requests and have been making decisions based upon the specific merits of the proposals, as well
as considering the conditions existing in the surrounding neighborhood.
The key issues raised by the appellants in their formal appeal are as follows (paraphrased), with a
staff response:
1. The Conditional Use Permit process is loosely written and arbi1trary in
allowing applications to exceed the MPFA by up to 250/0.
The CUP process appears flawed, unfairly administered, and undermines
the intent of the size limit ordinance.
The CUP is essentially a variance and should be subject to variance
criteria.
In the adoption process for the MPF A ordinance, it was proposed by the Historic COJnmission
and approved by the City Council to have an "escape valve" to allow for relatively srnall
exceptions to the MPF A as a conditional use. Essentially, if the conditions were appropriate, a
house exceeding the MPF A could still be approved and deemed appropriate for the
neighborhood.
-";~""_i.i&;;.:i:',oj..;.~ii~;f.~~i,~
Both the Historic Commission and Planning Commission have been reviewing the few
applications submitted since this ordinance was passed, and each CUP request has ha.d unique
conditions which have been found to warrant approval. However, it is a discretionary decision,
and subject to interpretation. It is not necessarily loosely written or arbitrary, but rather handled
on a case by case basis. In the early implementation of this ordinance, Staff has been cautious
with applicants, and not necessarily readily encouraging any applications to exceed the limits.
However, we cannot prohibit applications, but if an application is filed, we enstlre'that.it best
complies with the intent of the CUP process. Given the review process, we have found that with
an appropriate design and neighborhood consideration, CUP's have been granted by the Planning
Commission to exceed the maximum limit
The "escape valve" in the ordinance was specifically designed as a Conditional Use rather than a
Variance due to the much more stringent standards in approving a variance. With a variance, an
applicant has to essentially prove that there are ''unique and unusual circumstances that apply to
this site which do not typically apply elsewhere." This is a very difficult test. Rather, the
Conditional Use process was implemented, where criteria are utilized that ensure that the
conditions in the area are appropriate for such a use. It is a more discretionary process, and one
that can more easily meet the wide variety of demands associated with a maximum house size
ordinance. Each application will have a different set of conditions under which the nX!uest will
be reviewed. In past requests, there have issues of design, of plans made prior to adoption of the
ordinance that involved specific family issues, and of existing structures and distances between
buildings. Each request, while different, has helped shaped the approach taken.
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2. Traffic Issues along Hoxie Alley and the intersection of Church and Scenic.
This lot was created by a minor land partition approved by the City in December, 2002. At that
time, the lot design was approved for access off of the alley in accord with City policies. Given
that a home (x>uld be constructed on this property which met the MPF A as only a building permit
without further notice, the issue of traffic on the alley and Church is not relevant to the MPF A
request. Esst~ntially, this issue was addressed and approved as part of the lot creation in 2002.
3. Damage to tree roots next door at 147 Church Street.
Other than ensuring compliance with standard setback requirements, the City cannot impose
additional requirements on the applicant to protect a tree which is not on the applicant's property.
We would encourage the property owners to work together to ensure that the construction
activities are done in a manner which best protects the tree.
Related CJity Policies
The City Council adopted the Maximum House Size Ordinance in August, 2003 to ensure
compatible development within the Historic District. As part of that ordinance, a provision was
included to allow for applications which exceed the MPF A by up to 25% to be applied for as a
~
conditional use. l'
This is the first opportunity for the City Council, as the legislative body which adopted the
ordinance, to hear an appeal of a request to exceed the MPF A, and review the conditions under
which such an request is appropriately approved.
Council Qlptions:
This is a de novo appeal, meaning that the Council is acting on the request as submitted, with the
previous dec:ision of Planning Commission,Hearings Board becoming a recommendation to the
Council.
The Council could approve the request as submitted, approve the request with additional
conditions, or deny the request.
Staff Recommendation:
Based upon the evidence in the record, the recommendation of the Historic Commission, and the
previous decision of the Hearings Board, Staff recommends that the Council approve th~ request
as submitted. The design provides a massing that is similar in scale with the surrounding
neighborhood, the lot size of over 17,000 sq. ft. far exceeds the minimum lot size of the zone of
7500 sq. ft., and the 300 sq. ft. of floor area beyond the MPFA is relatively small. The location
of the family room behind the main massing on the street, and somewhat downhill from the
3
r.l'
street portion of the structure further lessens the impact of the additional square footage, and
does not create a larger massing for the neighborhood.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve the application as submitted.
Move to approve the application with additional conditions determined by the Coundl.
Move to deny the application (provide basis for denial).
Attachments:
The record for Planning Action 2004-110 is attached with an index sheet.
~
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2004-110
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 150 CHURCH STREET WITH
A PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
FLOOR AFtEA (MPFA) ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE. THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
FLOOIR AREA FOR THE PARCEL IS 3,249 SQUARE FEET, WHILE THE
PROPOISED RESIDENCE IS 3,557 SQUARE FEET OR 90/0 GREATER THAN
ALLOWE[t BY ORDINANCE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE
FAMILY FtESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 08 AD;
TAX LOT: 3901.
APPLICANT: ROBERT M. SALADOFF
12-01-04
11-10-04
11-18-04
Undated
11-12-04
11-12-04
11-12-03
10-27-04
10-27-04
10-12-04
Undated
11-9-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
9-23-04
9-23-04
9-23-04
9-8-04
9-7-04
9-7-04
9-1-04
8-26-04
8-26-04
8-26-04
8-6-04
8-6-04
Additional Information provided by the Applicant A-1 - A-23
Notice of Land Use Appeal of PA2004-110 1-3
Letter from Lew Nash to John McLaughlin 4-7
Photos of the property 8-10
Notice of Public Hearing before Council & related criteria 11-12
Affidavit of Mailing & mailing list 13-15
Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing before Council on 12-07-04 16
Findings, Conclusions & Orders for PA2004-110 17-20
Findings mailing list 20A
Hearings Board Minutes 21-24
E-mail from Derek Severson regarding call from Bill Emerson 25
E-mail from Jim Williams to Lew Nash 26
Planning Department Staff Report 27 -32
Applicant's additional submittals at Hearings Board 33-37
Letters from Neighbors submitted at Hearings Board 38-48
Notice of Public Hearing before Hearings Board and related criteria 49-50
Affidavit of Mailing & mailing list 51-52
Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing before Hearings Board on 10-12-04 53
Historic Commission Minutes 54-58
Letter from Mark and Cici Brown 59
Letter from Lewis Nash and Kate Thill requesting a public hearing
for P A2004-11 0
E-mail from David Hoxie
Notice of Hearings Board meeting, related criteria and mailing list
Newspaper Meeting Notice for Hearings Board on 9-14-04
Newspaper Public Hearing Notice for Historic Commission meeting
on 9-8-04
City of Ashland Planning Application for PA2004-11 0
Applicant's Findings
60
61-62
63-66
67
68
69-70
71-125
ROBERT SALADOFF
ARCHITECT
II II II
December 1, 2004
Mayor Alan.Deboer
Ashland City Counsel
Re:
Supplemental Testimony for CUP Application
Project
SaladoffResidence (New Residence)
150 Church Street
Ashland, Oregon
Assessor's Map 391E08AD Tax Lot 3901
Zoning:
R-1-7.5
Applicants: Robert and Susan Saladoff
The following materials provide supplemental testimony and documentation
related to the previously requested Conditional Use Permit (Section 18.24.040
K) for exceeding the MPFA (Maximum Permitted Floor Area) for dwellings
within the Historic District. We believe that our original findings and
testimony, as well as these supplemental materials provide overwhelming
substantiation for approval under the new Maximum House Size Ordinance.
Background:
We purchased the land at 150 Church in July 2003 after searching Ashland for
several years for the perfect location. We feel very fortunate to be able to
become part of this great historic neighborhood. With Robert as the architect,
we worked carefully throughout the last year designing a house that woulld fit
aesthetically and into the neighborhood, be energy efficient and healthy, and
meet our functional needs. The property has both serious constraints
545 A Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.482.3772 fax 541.552.9512 saICllrch@mind.net
A-I
(nwnerous old trees, a sloping site, and water run-off issues) and great
opportunities (views of Mt. Ashland, southern exposure, and nwnerous old
trees for shade and beauty). In addition, the house needed to present itself to
Church Street, even though we will enter the property off the rear easement
from th<<:~ alley. After many months and nwnerous site layouts and house
configurations, we believe the current design meets our needs and will blend
into the neighborhood.
In addition, the Ashland Planning Staff, the Historic Commission, and the
Planning Hearings Board have all previously approved the application for our
proposed house under the CUP.
Design and Site Standards:
See findings and previous documentation.
Sustainslble Design:
The proposed house design incorporates a wide-range of sustainable design
strategies that helps limit the impact on this property and the environment.
1. Energy Efficiency: The project design uses both passive and active
systems to reduce the energy usage of the house. The passive strategies
in.clude maximization of the southern exposure of the house, deep
ov-erhangs, landscape shading, higb-efficiency windows, super-insulation
of the exterior walls and roofs, whole house ventilation, and a reflective
b~u:rier in the roof. The active systems include a solar-heated water
hc~ter, in-floor hydronic heating system, a high-efficiency furnace with
zoned thermostats and controls, and a whole-house exhaust fan.
2. H:ealthy Products and Materials: The proposed house design will also
incorporate many building and finish materials that limit harmful
etnissions into the house and atmosphere. Some of these are listed
bc~low:
Building Materials and Systems:
a. Soy-based spray-in insulation
b., In-floor hydronic heating
c. Whole-house ventilation system with fresh-air intake
ROBERT SALADOFF
ARCHITECT
. . .
Ar~
Finishes:
a. Low or No-VOC stains and paints
b. Wheat board carcasses for cabinets
c. Natural stone flooring
d. Soapstone and limestone countertops
3. Environmentally friendly systems and materials: The design of thle
proposed house also includes several environmentally friendly malterials
including FSC (certified) structurallwnber, reclaimed wood flooring,
drought resistant plantings, and locally produced materials when
possible. Also during construction, most waste materials will be sorted
and recycled and/or brought to composting facilities.
Response to Appellant's Objections (The following summarizes
appellant's- objections to the proposed project along with the applic=ant~s
detailed response):
September 7. 2004
Criteria C-l Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage has not been met. The
appellant believes that {'size creep" will destroy the character of his
neighborhood.
The issues of scale, bulk, and coverage have both quantitative and
qualitative elements and the new Maximum House Size Ordinancc~
reflects the City's acknowledgement of each in detennining what is
appropriate for a given neighborhood. The basis of the,.orcJinance:
allows an increase in house size for larger home sites, up to a
maximum limit of 3249 s.f. The new ordinance, however, providc:s
a way to allow a "safety valve" for both existing and new
construction.
While lot coverage is addressed in the City's existing land use laws,
neither scale nor bulk are described in quantitative terms, leaving
this to a more qualitative review by the historic and planning
commissions. We believe the bulk and scale of the proposed house
is consistent with other single family homes in this neighborhood,
by breaking up the volwnes, varying the roof heights, setting the
house back off the street, using a variety of organic materials, and
stepping the house down towards the rear of the property. (See
ROBERT SALAOOFF
ARCHITeCT
. . .
;-3
Findings for more detailed descriptions and see attached
pc:~rspective drawings for views of the house in context)
Criteria C- 5 Uvability of the impact area: Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The extra size of the proposed house has pllShed the location of the planned
mimmingpool to within 50' of a neighbor's second story window and negativelY
ailects the neighbor with unwanted smells, lights, pumps, and nighttime noise.
R.~dless of the size of the house, 3557 s.f. versus 3249 s.f., the
location of the pool would remain unchanged. The pool's location
W:rlS determined because of existing natural features (topography, lot
width, and location) and parking restrictions and requirements
(parking accessed from alley). The applicant will abide by all other
relevant city ordinances with regard to noise, light, and glare.
Criteria C-7 Uvability of the impact area: Other factors: Objections to /mge
pt4rrking lot, a /mge swimmingpoo4 and a /mge bathhouse, the SlIt/ace water
run-oif will dramaticallY increase.
P~Lrking lot: The lot is designed to meet the minimum requirements
of three parking spaces and adequate back-up space and nothing
more, as required by the city's ordinances.
S,Wnming pool and pool house: The pool size (14' x 40') is
ac:tually small for a (2) person lap pool and is similar in size to other
n(~ighboring pools. The pool house is only 290 s.f. and houses both
b~Lth facilities and mechanical and pool equipment. The pool house
is also similar in style and detail to the main house.
Surface water nm-off: All roof and impervious surface water run-
of! will be carried underground via a new storm water pipe at the
aUley and to a connection on Pine Street (This was approved under
the land partition application submitted by Mr. Jim Williams).
Criteria C-7 Appellants are upset at the removal of the mid-:)ard 150 black
ot4'k tree.
Although we recognize the emotional connection that the
n(~hbors have made with many of the large trees along Church
Street, the removal of the oak tree at 150 Church was because of
safety issues regarding the new house and its residents, and not an
ROBERT SALADOFF
ARCHITLCT
. . .
)-'1
arbitrary decision. In addition, it was initiated at the
recommendation of two highly-recognized arborists and completed _
in accordance with all Ashland. tree ordinances. (See attached tree
report by Tom Myers)
October 12.. 2004
CUP Criteria B: Adequate Transportation: Public alley is too naTTOW to
handle any more transportation to the parking area behind the proposed
proPer!] development.
All'parking, traffic and transportation issues were reviewed and
approved at the time of the land partition initiated by Mr. Jim
Williams that created the lot at 150 Church Street.
CUP Criteria B-2: Adequate Transportation: Proposed project wiD
additional traJlic to already dangerous Church Street.
All traffic issues were reviewed and approved at the time of the
minor land partition initiated by Mr. Jim Williams that created the
lot at 150 Church Street.
Miscellaneous: Applicants are upset that . owners at 150 Church received
unequal treatment when inquiring about the CUP process in a historic distria~
Although the sequence of events outlined by Mr. Jim Williams
concerning his potential CUP application is unfortunate, it in no
way should have any bearing on this application.
Criteria C-l: S imi/arity in Scale, Bulle, and Coverage: Allows breach of the
size limit by over 9%, gives priority to design consideration at the expense of
bulk and scale, and CUP is not supported by compeUing reasons.
The additional 90/0 is not a breach of the ordinance, but allowed by
a CUP under the new ordinance, if the proposed project is
consistent with the bulk and scale of the neighborhood and historic
district as a whole. Again, the issues of bulk and scale are
qualitative in nature, and we believe the proposed house fits into
the neighborhood context.
ROBERT SALADOFF
ARCHITECT
. . .
A ~S
Miscellaneous: The overwhelming mt:!iori~ of neighbors oppose the oversized
hOI1,se.
This statement is untrue. The applicant has also produced a
minimum of 20 neighbors and other city residents who are in
support of the project. (See attached Petition in Support and
Letters in Support) However, the CUP does not require
neighborhood approval for any project.
The Conditional Use Permit process appears flawed, unfairlY administered, and
undermines the intent of the size limit ordinance.
Wl~ believe that the CUP process regarding our house has been
acbninistered, properly. In addition, the proposed project should
not be delayed any further because other citizens are unhappy with
thc~ existing ordinance or with city officials.
U1.,equa/ treatment by planning staff in administering the conditions of the
Mtzxjmum House S ii! ordinance and the SIIbsequent CUP process.
As stated earlier, the reported events outlined by Mr. Jim Williams
concerning his potential CUP application are unfortunate, but they
should have no any bearing on this application. These concerns
should be brought to the attention of planning staff, the city
council, and the city attorney as a separate concern.
Correspondence with Neighbors:
Since pw~chasing the property in July 2003, we have had several contacts with
neighbors about impending work and the project in general. One of the first
contacts 'was about the removal of one of the old black oak trees on our
property. We sent a letter to several neighbors, and later a copy of the arborists
report, advising them that we unfortunately will need to remove the tree. We
informed them that we were removing the tree at the suggestion of two well-
known aJ~borists because of extreme decease and decay, and not because of
design issues.
For the rnost part, the neighbors have preferred to express concerns through
appeals and petitions. Except for Doug Widney and Jim Williams, we have not
heard directly from any other neighbors.
ROBERT SALADOFF
ARCHITECT
. . .
A-ft,
After the first appeal, we sent letters to the (4) neighbors who spoke in
opposition to our project at the Historic Commission and the Planning
Hearings Board to offer a chance for an open-dialogue on the proposed work
(see attached letters), only to receive a sarcastic response from the group as a
whole (see attached letter).
Petition of Support:
We have attached a copy of a petition in support of the proposed project from
neighbors within 2 Y2 blocks of our property.
Letters of Support:
- Mark Knox (attached)
- Bob Kuenzel (previously submitted)
- Neil Sechan (previously submitted)
- Dan Maymar (submitted separately)
Respectfully,
U 5d'/{j
Robert and Susan Saladoff
EXHIBITS:
Perspective Drawings
Tree Report
Correspondence with Neighbors
Petition in Support
Letters of Support
ROBERT SALADOFF
ARCHITLCT
. . .
A--?
---'----_..._~._~-,.._---_._---~.__._-------~-,-------.
";"--.
" l /
i :
)!
~. (
,.J'---" .J
,
.-~'
J'.~ '..> .
. ~,"')"
. \ '. /' i.\ '
. ; ~~ . /7..\J\ '
~' (1 ~"'" '. ~.~ \
.., / . \ .. ~~I ~'. \.'\,
. ;( ~;, .~., ...
. . ~~ _~ ,-~~ '..1
.' '- ....It-;; ~'-'-- ." _~,,~
. . I. c~ .
,",."~",
~,'.
.._._~t~
.~j~'1; .
/J~~~~~~~'S.:'i
-'~"'-'-'
"
../'. ,......
.--i' :JC>/'
.j-
j
....~~J
....~
<'~~:
"
(
.,
<*.:. ~.
.,~. ",
\
.I
\
'\r\
J
I.
(. _ .f
X .; ,I
c:... \ . ;,
~ .\
. '. t' .
r _;
oJ ::
\"
(.
('
'.J
\
,.)
....
...
...
~::~'"'''' '.
'r:*;.
~::~"_ :::~J;~ "". """
./ ;;.---;::;'~
/"
....-..---
........~(~
.......
A-a
! i
Ii
; I
~ \
. i
. \
\
,_ h
..i\,t>,(if'J
I ,.,:
j.~.'''''
\.
";~~E-:::,. -' ;.;" ~
. .... ......._...,.~
.roTi~ 1;
) Jj ~t
~ ,: 'n:
~: ~}.,~'.'~
.'. v.,.. " , ~'"
~ ",.. .'
, .
\':\ ~ \\
.\\ \
i,\
}\ . .
'r'), ':' .
A....::=' . .-..-
/~---1 T
V~," IE--j! ;
\" 1j::;:._,.-. '.' 1
\. \ _.::' ...~
'\ --...4.
- .,~t
0,';/ B- > ',,'-.\
"f(' ---1 ..~
~~\~""-"'."," . . '-\" -~t'. . "\
" \JJ" '
" . .';.J .,... . ,'\
'\. ..: .
'\;.' I <
~~~
, i
)\
~
~o/)
I
\
(.\
,'-\N.r Ii!
..,..c&i..f:': ". t \
....'.........'- ~
':;>,,~
/' .....-:~~
A-7
J"
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-482-3667
ApfiI20,2004
Attn Rob 5alidoff
150 Church St
Asliand, Or 97520
Hazard Tree Report for 160 Chu~h
Th4~ 42-ilch diameter Black Oak at 150 Chwch street is in dectine. It has a canopy radius of 30 feet
and a height of 48 feet Although this tree could exist in a vacant lot for years without presenting a
hazard, once a house is on the property. the tree must be considered halaI'dous. There Is a 25 inch
wide (:SlYly on the south side will assoaated root decay in the buttress roots on that same side.
Further signs of root decay can be evidenced by the abtlldance of deadwood i1 the canopy and the
generall thinning of the canopy. There is a connecting decay coIurm above the tn..lk wound on one of
the main scaffold limbs. The tree was topped in the past SO that many of the scaffold limbs have
hoIlowI~ will associated decay. This tree could have a catastrophic failure of either the trunk or the root
system, I must consider ttis tree ~ and recommend removal If you have any questions
regarding this report, please call me.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
:h-
DBA Upper Umb-it
I"
. . .
A-/D
SiIII~
~
().tnar. _ prMtI v:- rinovm
DIll: ~ f ,~ (d..J~ -r ~ ~\)~ tft' ~
..ot.~
=~\ 1..S"~.1J \.... ~~ L1() crt; i
18: ~ ....... I NII_ _4 </, , s,ma:...:.3CL
,.. a QIIltIIIIy symmetriC GlfnInor ayrnmttry 0 mIior uymmetrf 0 stump spnd 0 Dg-hUdaI
c:re. cIIII: 19"'aomirtanl O~ Cintetmedialw 0 ~
lJIeCRNll-"= ~ ". All dale OJOUl'Q DscmHnaturI Omature ~
....... ~ QaOM\ctcanlld OCJlZSSMti~ IIil1Jpped OCIQWR.-d Opolktdtd 0 aown redua:d Otlush ~ (J ~
, 0 none 0 multiple pnring'" Apprax. dates T
........ Ospedmen O~~ CwiIdIfe Dunusual Ostracl IRe a screen ursNdc aalldgenouS C pn*ded byp. aganey
. mliitAiAiJo EvAfuATiciliF~RM~~~~
1 ~o C ~un:-\- S \-
HAlIRD M1D&8:
-
__+_t__:!:
FaIurI .. sa . ...... ·
PoCardiaI at part RaIi1Q
_ Immedialt d~ needId
__ NeedS tuntser.~
_ Dead trIG
Huard 1
~
ather Ii.
tREE IIEAL11I
ftIIqc CIIE (](ftOIINI 0 chIoIptiC 0__ ~ G H
,.......,. Ormnnal ~ leIIlbe: 0 normal (ifmd
__-- pewIr. 0 eJaZI\ent 15r"~ c:: paCI( TwIt 0IeUcl? V N
........ ~ull.......- Oaaaent ~ OpoGf 0 none
VIIiw elm: 0 taIIant 0 MQQe (J fair r paot
...... ~JI. HIM:
..
IiIaWtb ~
o scala O~ 0 lipS OcableS
O~ Qpnts
o ather
l
SITE ....111OIS
Sill CbddIr. ~Iatdence C ~ ~ indU&triII :: part DOptn tpace 0 naturII O~OI~
h.~. 0 ~ ~ taised t)ed = ooataiIaer 0 ~ S1iWn '0 shrub bOC'der 0 wtnd tnalt
InipIIea: 0 ROllI ~ a inadeQ8t ::: cxcessM .:. tnInk weIUed
.......~? Y If) 0 cansndm = sail tItStU(banc:e C grade d\ang6 Dine danng 0 ~ IcIearing
%dripIbIt,.. @ 10-25% ~ ~ J5..100% .........,Ifted? y(1)
'" ..... wi iii sell: 0'- 10-~ 25-50% 5(H~ 7$-100%
%~..........: 0% 10-25'- ZS-~ ~~ 75-1()OIr.
IoU ~ 0'-' CJftIow ~compICIId DdrOUQhty 0 sa.. O~na Oacllk Osmd votwnc 01$.""* DhistAxy of tal
o cfalJ OIllpWM 0_ _ . aped: .. , v.
..dIM: 0 JgIIts OsiaRaoe D line-of-sighl [JvieW 0 ~.. 0 undeIQraund .Ies otratrecCl IdjaCIfC wg. 0
&pain II -.: [hingIe tree 0 below C3nOPJ [] abCWI canopy 0 ftI(lr.fIIIy exposed 0 windward. r.anopy Idol 0 II'CI prone to wiAdIrw<<
~ wIDd 6wd1eII: 0c:c:unenCt at lIMa *"" 0 newr iJ1ddom o~
TARGET
Use lMdefbe: Obullding 0 parting 0 tQt6c 0 podeStNa 0 rtaadan 0 aandscape O~ 0 tIN. fuIlftS 0 - ines
CIa.,... ..1IIIMf? Y N tu.... .. ~ Y N
~ 0 oc:caioQaI use 0 icdeImIaRt use 0 Ifr.Quent uu OCOP&Unt use
I.
The IIamatioNI SocIety of MoricutWr1assuRIIS no n=sponsibility tor an:IuSions Dr ttaM"CMudallons dariYed ftom use I~ \hiS torm.
tJo\c.: '''''''f<.. \6 cun=~ ~ o...~ ~\oJflS ~( C).~
Specimtft: TllEE UAZARD EVALUATION FORM. Page 1
A-I (
.
,
c
I
IS.
i
I
. .
,. ,.
i-
...'..
TREE DEFB:11
RtKJT DfmJJ:
su,..ct.....,ttU:> N ~,.aeat y dO 88:
~ ..III: OIe\4M OIftOClellil 6I1Ott ~ Q.... OmcxSntl n.
........___ Mtance fIGm.,. .....1ItctM: _" .............. t.J N -- f'
...... .... Ira: OIMlt 0 fnOdIqt& 0 laW ....... .....fIIhn: 0..... ...-0 mOder8Ie 0 low
LfAII: __ _ tom VItIIcaI ~ Ounnlbnll O~ SoII..-..: Y N
.......... III ... (j II .... ..... Y N 101 adq: Y N
C.....II...1 ta=II: .......nr: 0... [] mOdelltl CHow
t:RtIWII DfR~ Indicate presence of indMduaI dcfICtJ and rate IheJr scverIy (I "1C\IaI. m · moderIII.l.. mtt
D&KT ROOT ... TRUMI SCAFfOlDS IfWtatEI
Poor bmet
Bow. sweeo
COcIoft1NnlsIforb
.1.tUttoIe-1tb~
hI:Iud8d bao"
~ 4lj/'CI Wi!iftii
s
tbmers
GinlinI1
WoandsIte!un -~
oav ...~ s
CMtv S S
CGnbhnuSIuuoInsIbrarJae
..
l.ooIotrKlced bait ..c:.. ~
NIStifta hollflba ewe
~Stubs I'Yt
BorIt*n"'-llnts
IIs.4MIts
~ flM hit
HAZARD RATING
- PIIIIMIt Il2Iyto fat I ~ "- 0('" 0::0 ~
Inspdon p.:riod: DIUII-k:::..- biaIlIIUIl_ OCher
FailIn Pal!AaaI + SIzIIlf PIrt + 'llget1Wing . Hmrd RaIiAO
3-- ',-- + '-t + 2 · --9-
HAZARD ABATEMENT
~ [J ImKNI ddIctM I*C D nduce end"" DCRIWII.... O. 0... QIROPY [] CRIlIM ftIduct 0 IIItrudurt (J shape
~.
I ........... 0.. tnMn IJ _0.,.. [J.no....
~ _I; <!'J N .......1 Y N 111M '-let Y N 0IMr.
Bled. ..... na: CiHOne 0 evaluate
...... ~ a owner Q IIIInIgIr 0 glMming agency II-.:
COMMEltTS
Sta~ ~~ CC)u~ \~\-~
.... ~ 1 -low: 2..1Md1um; 3 -1iQh; 4. severe
sa cI PItt 1 . 4r (15 em); 2 - ~r (15-45 aD);
S - "W (&15 an); 4. >30" (75 an)
-"'1IIino: 1. aa:aionII use; 2........... at;
3. Qqueat.. 4 - COMtIIt..
Spedmen: TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM, Page 2
A-/;;(
Susan and Rob Saladoff
1290 Munson Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 482-1593 (home)
482-3111 (Susan - work)
482-3772 (Rob- work)
October 18, 2004
Melody and Jeff Jones
79 Pine Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Melody and Jeff:
We were sorry that you left the meeting so early last week. We wanted to apologize to you
for not providing the information to you aboutthe oak tree in advance of its removaL 'Ve did send
letters to all our adjoining neighbors on Church Street and those across the street and the neighbors
on Baum. We didn't realize that we should have included those of you on Pine as well. It was not
our intent to exclude you. .
We were saddened by the report from the two arborists about the oak tree, and would not
. have considered removing the tree if we had not gotten the reports :that we did. You heard the report
from Tom Myers, read at the Planning Commission. He called the tree "hazardous" and
. recommended that we remove it. We brought in another arborist from Grants Pass, without telling
him of Tom's report so that we could get an independent analysis, and he said the sam(~ thing. We
love trees, and did not remove it simply to make room for our house. We plan on planting many new
trees, which won't replace the beautiful oak, but will hopefully provide the neighborhood with some
new beauty.
We also recognize your concerns about the alley, and the increased traffic. Considering that
the alley will be our primary access to our property, we too are concerned about safety. We did not
. have a choice about how to access our property; it was the CitY's decision that we enter fi.om the rear
and off the alley.
We know you questioned whether we could really be good neighbors at the Planning
Commission. We have always had good relationships with oui neighbors, and when we: bought the
property, the first thing we did was knock on our neighbors' doors to say hello. We realize that it
must be difficult for you, having lived in your house for so many years, to have the neighborhood
change and the lot filled with a house.
We would like to reconcile the hard feelings that obviously exist. Regardless of ~lVhether our
house has an additional 308 square feet or not, we are still going to be neighbors, and it would be
much nicer to have neighbors whom we can say hello to, and share the proverbial "cup of sugar."
We would still like to see if that is possible with both of you. Perhaps we could meet and get to
know each other without talking about the property. We would like you. to meet our two daughters.
Rebecca is 16 and ajunio~ in high school; Dana is 14 and a freshman. We don't even know if you
A-/3
'.' have children. and might need a babysitter. My hope is that maybe we could start fresh.
If you are willing to meet with us and reconcile our differences, we would be grateful. If you
. feel that we need a neutral third party to help smooth things over between us, we would be willing
to' do . it that way as well. Our email addressesareSsaladoff@aol.comorSalarch~nd.net.
Otherwise, you could reach us by phone at home or work. We hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
~ and Rob Saladoff
A- ,'1
Susan and Rob Saladoff
1290 Munson Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 482-1593 (home)
482-3111 (Susan - work)
482-3772 (Rob- work)
-"October 15,2004
'Kate Thill and Lewis Nash
88Baum Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Kate and Lew:
We have always thought of ourselves as good neighbors, and tried to convey that by coming.
to meet. you right after we bought the property . We were, saddened by the 'report fi~om the two
arborists about the oak tree, and would not have considered removing the tree if we had not received
the expert. reports that we did. You heard the report from Tom Myers, read at the Planning
Commission. He called the tree "hazardous" and recommended that we remove it. We e:ven brought
in another arborist from.Grants Pass, without telling him of Tom's report so that we l~uld get an
independent analysis, and the second professional arborist said the same thing. We love trees, and
did not remove'the dying oak simply to make room for our house. We plan on planting many new
trees, which woil 't replace the beautiful oak, but which will hopefully provide the neighborhood with
some new beauty. .
We would like to reconcile the hard feelings that presently exist. Regardless of whether our
house ultimately has an additional 308 square feet or not, we are still going to build a house, and will
still be neighbors, and it would be much nicer to have neighbors whom we can say hello to, and
share" the proverbial "cup of sugar. " We would still like to see if that is possible with both of you.
Perhaps we could meet and get to know each other without talking about the property.. We would
like you to meet our two daughters. They are both 4.0 students and, when you meet theIJn, hopefully
you will see that they are not the types to have wild and loud parties. We don't even lmow if you
have children or grandchildren in the area. My' hope is that maybe we could start fresh. We
obviously have done things that have upset you, and we apologize.
If you are willing to break bread with us and reconcile our differences, we would be grateful.
If you feel that we need a neutral third party to help smooth things over between us, vte would be
..willing to do it that way as well. Our email addressesareSsaladoff(Q).aol.comorSalarch@mind.net.
Otherwise, you could reach us by phone at home or work. We hope to hear from you soon.
Smcerely, ~
(ld;ttv~ ~~
A= and Rob Saladoff
f
A-15
Susan and Rob Saladoff
1290 Munson Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 482-1593 (home)
482-3111 (Susan' - work)
482-3772 (Rob- work:)
- 'October 18, 2004
. Cynthia and l\,fark Brown
171 Church Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear CYnthia and Mark:
We wc~e saddened.by the report-from the two arborists about the oak tree, and would not
have considerc~ removing the tree if we had not gotten the reports that we did. You heard the report
from Tom M[yers, read at the Planning Commission. He called the tree "hazardous" and
recommended that we remove it We brought in another arborist from Grants Pass, without telling
him ofTom'sreport so that we could get an independent analysis, and he said the same thing. Vie
. love trees, and did not remove it simply to make room for our house. We plan on planting many new
trees, which won't replace the beautiful oak, but will hopefully provide the ~eighborhood with some
new beauty.
We rec:ognize your concerns about the alley, and also wantto make sure that the intersection
between Chur'ch and the alley is safe. Considering tIiat we will be using that alley as our primary
"f access to our hoUse, that concern is equally impOrtant to us as well. As you heard at the Planning
Commission, 'we did not have a choice about how to access our property; it was the Ci~ s decision.
We would like to reconcile the hard feelings that obviously exist. Regardless of whether our
house has an additional 308 square feet or not, we are still going to be neighbors, and it would be '
much nicer to have neighbors whom we can say hello to, and share the proverbial "cup of sugar."
We would still like to see .if that is possible with both of you. Perhaps we could meet and get to
know each otb.er without talking about the property. We would like you to meet our two daughters. "
Rebecca is 16 and a junior in high school; Dana is 14 and a freshman. My hope is that maybe we
could start fresh.
If you are willing to meet with us and reconcile our differences, we would be grateful. If you
feel that we ne:ed a neutral third party to help smooth things over between us, we would be willing
to do it. that v,ay as well. Our email addressesareSsaladoff<<?2ao1.comorSalarch@mind.net.
Otherwise, YOlll could reach us by phone at home or work. We hope to hear from you soon~
ad~
Susan and Rob Saladoff
A-fb
Susan and Rob Saladoff
1290 Munson Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 482-1593 (home)
482-3111 (Susan'- work)
482-3772 (Rob- work)
- 'October 18, 2004
Mr. David Hoxie
174 Church Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear David:
We heard your letter read at the recent Planning Commission hearing, and WallLted to see if
you would be willing to meet with us to discuss your concerns in greater detail. With r(~pect to the
run-off issue, we have an easement to drain our water'~der the adjoining property to Pine Street.
With respect to traffic in the alley, we have a similar interest in making sure that the alley is safe.
We did not have.a choice about how to access our property; it was the City's decision t1l1at we enter
from the rear and off the alley.
We don't know if you too have hard feelings about the oak tree. Many of the other neighbors
are very upset that we cut down the oak. We were saddened by the report from two arborists about
the oak tree, and would not have considered removing the' tree if we had not gotten the reports that
we did. Tom Myers, from Upper Limb-It, called the tree "hazardous" and recommended that we
remove it W fP brought in another amorist from Grants Pass, without telling him of To Ill' s report so
'that we could get an independent analysis, and he said the same thing. We love trees, and did not
remove it simply to make room for our house. We plan on planting many new tr~ vrhich won't
replace the beautiful oak, but will hopefully provide the neighborhood with some new beauty.
We would like to reconcile any hard feelings that you may have. Regardless of 'whether our
. house has an additional 308 square feet or not, we are still going to be neighbors, and it would be
much nicer to have neighbors whom we' can say hello to, and share the proverbial "cup of sugar."
If you are. willing to meet with us, we would be grateful. Our email addresses are
SsaladoffcQ),aol.com or Salarchuumind.net. Otherwise, you could reach us by phone at ho:me or work.
We hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
J4?12~ ~ {ab
Susan and Rob Saladoff
/
A-f7
Rob and Susan Saladoff November 9, 2004
290 M.unson Dr.
Ashland, OR 97520
To the Saladoffs:
The Jones', the Browns, Lew Nash & Kate Thill all have received your
letters about neighborhood harmony . We prefer to respond as one" voice.
Jim Williams has received no communication from you.
This is to let you know that we plan to appeal the issuance of your
Conditional Use Permit to the City Council. We consider the ordinance and
it's application to be flawed and we want a fair hearing.
About your desire to reconcile with the neighbors, we too are concerned that
your ac:tions to date have left very little sugar in the neighborhood's cup. An
effort on your part to make amends with Jim Williams would be helpful.
We hope that the resolution of these issues will create a better neighborhood
climate:.
\~)\'J~
Lew Nash
~
.IUM~~ ~
Mark I~rown
A-/8
PETITION IN SUPPORT
We are in full support of the proposed residential project at 150 Church
Street in Ashland, Oregon. The project is beautifully designed, adheres
to the guidelines of As Wand's design standards and the new maxiJnum
house size ordinance, compliments the existing historic neighborhood,
and minimizes the impact on the existing historic neighborhood by
using sustainable principles.
NO. NAME SIGNA:
1. ;]0 NItTI/1t7J L;q-,JG~ '
ADDRESS
/9'1 ~q~ ~"
'1 r:
, , ~.
4.
. .~
5. ~-'l..vC ;>'EM..l.DW
311 ~CE;"V(L
~ LI S 4 gT~c.lL f /'
10.
le ( tJ t.cf/~
b \ ~v--'t\c.., S~.
II) It-._
I) -.~ r('f"'
.' 'H~r
ZI5' IV UT"t..GY
8.
11. CItR.IS rtg6o""-~-rflJ~ tJrJir ~ 2-15 NUTlet
U. M. r:::/ rG,\".~) F,; <'71;-/2 j Sf!. 7J(, f (~) r;;Ji:;~. b 3 50s II- Sr:
13. t!..l~ LLEE,j c- uK. R.. A- JJ
~~.d.<1.?-..J &-<"/'l/c..:'--r'-"" &_3 13 (,/~~.1 S'T',
14.
15.
A -19'
PETITION IN SUPPORT
We a1'le in full support of the proposed residential project at 150 Church
Street in Ashland, Oregon. The project is beautifully designed, adheres
to the guidelines of As Wand's design standards and the new maximum
house size ordinance, compliments the existing historic neighborhood,
and rrunimizes the impact on the existing historic neighborhood by
using sustainable principles.
ADDRESS
/1 S- 5~~ ,e, 7)r ..
Q..c.
f\. ~ Pt,..;~
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
It-;Lo
,
PETITION IN SUPPORT
We are in full support of the proposed residential project at 150 Chun:h
Street in Ashland, Oregon. The project is beautifully designed, adheres
to the guidelines of Ashland's design standards and the new maximum
house size ordinance, compliments the existing historic neighbomood,
and minimizes the impact on the existing historic neighbomoodby
using sustainable principles.
tL
ADDRESS
- q I1J.NrTIi Sf': As 11 IAWO
I
~ ni;~ 511 fJ~J./,-v/
.. '..;.:.~~;':~i:.~,-;';':';':~-:
A-~I
November 30th, 2004
Ashland City Council
20 East lv1ain Street
Ashland!1 OR 97520
Subject: Letter of Support; Saladoff House
I'm writing this letter in support of Rob and Susan SaladoiI's Conditional Use Permit
application. I've seen the Saladoff's house plans and believe the design is attractive and
contextually compatible with the neighboring houses and will one day be a contributing
resource for the Skidmore Academy Historic District.
I've had the opportunity to be involved with a few similar applications, pre-applications
or inquiry meetings involving proposals to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPF A). I also had many conversations with the Historic Commissioners as to what
policies ,and thresholds should be considered with such applications. During these
opportunities, it was believed that minor exceptions (l-lOOtlo) should be granted on the
basis of iarchitectural design and neighborhood compatibility. Requests from 10% to 25%
were held to a much higher standard. In these cases, the applicants would need to base
their findings on not only architecture or contextual compatibility with the neighborhood,
but also physical constraints of the property such as steep slopes or access constraints. In
the Saladoff's case, the percentage over the MPF A is minute and the house compatible
and attractive.
Lastly, I understand the ordinance is complex and has caused some frustration at times
with the public. However, the ordinance is working as it was intended. The ordinance has
eliminatled "monster homes", discouraged "scrape offs" and has required applicants to
thoroughly evaluate their ideas so that the best plans are on the table. The City's Historic
Districts are an asset for all of us and deserve this level of protection.
In the Saladoff's case, they likely could have redesigned their home to meet the MPF A
and ther4~by could have avoided the expense of the filing fee, eliminated "all public/staff
discretion" and designed an incompatible residence. They chose the more difficult route
because they need the additional space for their family and more importantly, believe in
their design. The Council should reward them for their actions and grant the Conditional
Use Pennit as did the Historic Commission and Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
~?f~..
Mark Knox
<----- .".--
~
~
A-;L;;(
Page I 01"2
Robert Saladoff
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
<Kuenzel@aol.com>
<mclaughj@ashland.or.us>
<seversod@Ashland.or.us>
Sunday, October 10, 2004 2:24 PM
Rlanning Action No. 2004-110
Re: Project by Robert and Susan Saladoff, property at 150 Church Street, Planning Action No. 2004-110
Dear Mac:
I had actually hoped to be able to come to the hearing scheduled for this matter on Tuesday, but a federal judge in Eugene
ordered everyone involved in one of my cases to a mandatory settlement conference there that day. I hope that providing you
with a few of my thoughts by email will be an appropriate way to share my input on this matter.
To begin: My family and I live at 98 Pine Street, and are neighbors of the affected property. On a good day, I think I could
probably throw a ball from my property to (well, I'm getting older, maybe almost to) the nearest part of tho Saladoff property. And
in coming back home from business around town, we drive up Church Street and down Hoxie's Alley (right by the property) every
- day, often numerous times. I am also far from insensitive to the issue of having new building in our neighborhood fit in
appropriately - as you know, the huge De Boer project on Granite Street is literally right below our home and yard, and we have
thus had ample reason recently to think, and to talk among neighbors, about the importance of using the City's infill policy in a way
that is consistent with the values and "feel" of the neighborhoods affected.
All that said, I have a difficult time understanding the concern apparently expressed by at least one neighbor about this project.
From what I understand, the proposed design will fit very well into our historic neighborhood, uses some of the best features of
craftsman design, works with existing grades to blend into the hillside, breaks up the volumes involved with numerous set-backs,
etc. from Church Street, and will employ natural materials and textures to blend well with the landscape.
Although it is somewhat larger than the immediate neighboring homes, it seems to me that a house of thiis size (approximately
3500 square feet) is hardly inappropriate for a contemporary family of four. If I understand the numbers correctly, the requested
incremental space to be allowed as against the normal entitlement is only 300 square feet. That incremE~nt, of course, is very
modest. And from any neighbor's perspective, it would certainly be less intrusive than a small outbuildin~~ - which could
nonetheless be much larger than the 300 square feet at issue here - pushed back to the setback line.
Finally in this regard, as someone who loves open space, and can well understand (remember the Granite Street project) the
instinctive sadness of a neighbor who must see what has been a vacant lot turn into someone else's home, I still have to say that
there is open space - and there is open space. Considering the appearance of this particular empty lot, the overall site design
proposed, including an attractive house, with patios, stone walls, and pool, seems likely to improve the appearance of the
neighborhood, measured against the "open space" that is there now.
Finally, though I don't know how pertinent these facts may be to the planning action at issue, it seems appropriate to note that I
have known the Saladoffs from the days of their exploration of the possibility of moving to our city. They came here, as have so
many of us, because they loved the community feeling and values of Ashland, and wanted to be part of it And that they have:
both Robert and Susan have become active contributors to our community, through their religious congrE~gation and in numerous
civic activities. Both of them (and their two lovely daughters) are wonderful people, and, frankly, we look forward to having them
become a part of our neighborhood.
If you think that there may be anything else helpful that I can provide you or the Commission, or if there is some better way to
communicate my thoughts, I very much hope that you will email me back or call me at my office (552-0142), sometime before I
head off to Eugene on Tuesday morning.
Best regards,
Bob Kuenzel
A-~3
11/30/2004
I -- ----.
~~~v~: ~o~~
Notice of Land Use Appeal
(Ashland Municipal Code ~ 18.108.11 0.A.2)
~ Name{s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address{es):
1. L~W~\~ VAS\-\ ~~ fY\v~ €\
2. S~i.. ~ (,~{i) ~~ ,"
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal.
n..
--J
. C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed
Date of De(~sion: Planning Action #: Title of planning action:
04" . J~) e-&o~ :1&oLJ- \ 1 0 CS4-lA.l'Jofr t-\oo~~
D. How Person{s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party
(For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.)
The persOI1l named in 18 I am the applicant.
Box A. 1. above li])articipated in the public hearing before the planning
qualifies as, a party commission, either orally or in writing.
because: ~ I was. entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due .to error.
18 I am the applicant.
18 I participated in the public hearing before the planning
commission, either orally or in writing.
18 I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error. .
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as
a party.
The person named in
Box A.2. above
qualifies a~. a party
because:
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal .
.:~"'. .1,
1. The first: specific ground for Which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additionallPages if necessary): '.
S ~~ At\-;\ (.,b\ttJ ~ tl tits '
1.
This is an lerror because the applicable criteria or procedure in the' Ashland Municipal Code
~ or other law in fi requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary):
2. The sec:ond 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
fi or other law in fi requires that
(attach additi.onal pages if necessary):
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
~ or other law in ~ requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary):
I
~ '"
l
, -....
}
4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For
each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other
law that were violated.
Appeal Fee
With this notice of appeal I (we ) submit the sum of $ J t> q which is the appeal fee
required by ~ 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date: \\,.v ~ \ ()) d-{}Q ~
Note: This co Ie Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee mu~~t be filed
with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone
541-488-6002, prior to the effective date. or the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective
dates of decisions are set forth In Ashland Munlcl al Code Section 18.108.070.
~
Name
Lew Nash & K.ateThill
Mark & Cici Brown
Jeff & Melody Jones
Jim Williams
I.:.........
}
Names and Addresses of Petitioners Action 2004-110
Address
Qualification
Ordinance #
88 Baum St. In Public Hearing
18.104.050
~l{,.."0
CUP Criteria B
cum~ri~lB
17 Church St. In Public Hearing
79 Pine St. In Public Hearing
160 Church St.ln Public Hearing
CUP intimidated
j
. .,
, '.
NOV 1 8 2004
John McLaughlin, Director
Community Development Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
November 181, 2004
Re: Saladoff Permit
Dear Mr. McLaughlin:
Attached is a copy of our appeal to the City Council that outlines our reasons for Jnaking
the appeal.
During the Historic Commission meeting of September 8th you stated that "the Suuf
needs to review the CUP process" and to "identify specific criteria" to deal with the new
size limit. You also stated that you considered the CUP as a safety net, and we agree.
We understand that there should be a reasonable "safety net" for practical difficulties,
hardships, or for results at-odds with the intent of the law. In our view however, the
Saladoff proposal does not satisfy any of these.
To justify his over-sized house, Mr. Salidoff gave the following reasons:
1. A family of four (including 2 teenagers).
2. The "strong possibility" of a senior relative moving in within 5 years
3. That they entertain often and have frequent visitol;S requiring extended stays
4. That the conforming house design makes the addhional size unimportant.
We find these arguments unconvincing, at odds with the intent of the size limit ordinance,
and not compelling enough to over-ride size creep concerns in the Historic District. In
our view a Conditional Use Permit is a modified Variance and should be treated in much
the same way. The Staff takes a different approach. One Staff member (Molnar) stated
that the CUP is a softer and more ''free flowing" process than a Variance, but I can find
nothing in the ordinance that allows this. Is there any justification for this "softening"?
It appears that the loosely written ordinance and Staff interpretations are causing
unfairness and confusion. Comments made by Staff and Commissioners during the
October 12th Planning hearing confirm this - (taken from the minutes).
1. "Each application is a little different and it will be a struggle to make a
decision." (Molnar)
2. "Square footage doesn't address the bulk and scale at the street. This is a bulk
and scale ordinance but directed toward square footage. More guidelines are
needed for this ordinance." (Morris with Dawkins' agreement)
3. "Size creep is the only issue. The (size cap) ordinance is generous and (I)
can't approve (the permit) without a hugely compelling reason." (Dawkins)
4. "The 25% overage must be coming from our elected officials but (I) don't
know what should or could ever allow for a percent increase." (Douma)
4
NOV 1 8?~ 'T
The heariltlg minutes add:
"Morris s::rid if the Council really wants to identify bulk, scale and coverage, they can't
really be identified in this ordinance. He would hate to have an appeal to clarify the
ordinance. He is afraid the Council will not clarify it, and we will go through it again.
There are no criteria that seem to be valid based on our CUP that apply to this
ordinance" .
The neighbors and I are appealing this case because we are angry that this loosely written
ordinance: has allowed the easy breaching of the size limit, the unfair issuing of permits,
the apparent arbitrary Staff interpretations, and the impossible adjudication by
Commissioners, such as who gets to exceed the limit by 9%, 25%, or 0 %.
The City of Ashland Conditional Use Permit Handout states that a permit requires a
response to each of the following criteria, and in item #1 it says "That the use would be in
conformance with ALL standards within the zoning district - - - -" (capitalization mine).
One of the standards for the Historic District is the new square-foot size limit. The
logical response is that Saladoff's application is not in conformance and therefore must
be denied. If so, why was the permit issued?
During the September 8th Historic Commission hearing, Commissioner Saladoff
"recused" himself, walked around the table to make his own presentation, then returned
to his cOlnmissioner's seat -or close to it -for the rest of the discussion and vote on his
project. l-:Ie.did not vote but, as verified in the minutes, he participated in those
proceedings by asking a question. His presence and action gave the appearance of insider
influence and favoritism. This is significant because the Commission's recommendation
influenced Douma's swing vote at the Planning hearing later. What does "recuse" mean
in such a public hearing?
Still unresolved for a number of us in the neighborhood are: traffic issues along Hoxie
Alley and the dangerous intersection at Church & Scenic; the City's rigid adherence to
sidewalk and driveway access rules in the Historic District in contrast with the ''fluid''
house size ordinance, and the likely damage to Doug Widney's tree roots next door at
147 Church Street by the proposed house foundations. We understand that these side
issues may not be appropriate for the City Council hearing, but how do we get them
resolved?
As neighbors, we find ourselves paying $269 for a hearing before the City Council to
defend its own defective ordinance against a permit that probably should not have been
issued in the first place. What recourse do we have to correct this?
Our City Council hearing is scheduled for December '"f' so I would appreciate a timely
response. My email addressis:nashthill@opendoor.com.
Lew Nash.
\JL~~ t\J a.~^"
cc: City .Attorney Mike Franell
b
\ \d ,~\\~ 'v\' \\ \:.\)V C\\ V \ ~
NOV 1 8 2004
Lew Nash & Kate Thill
88 Baum St.
Planning Action 2004-110
of October 12. 2004\
Saladoff permit
Section 18.104.050
Criteria C-l
Grounds for Reversal
Similarity in Scale, Bulk and Coverage:
We contend that the Planning Commission staff has improperly issued a Conditional Use
Permit, that specific code conditions have not been met, and that the staff has arbitrarily,
and without public input, decided which code provisions apply in this case. We contend
that the criteria for bulk and scale have not been addressed because this permit:
Allows a breach of the size limit by over 9%.
Gives priority to design considerations at the expense of bulk and scale. The
ordinance lists square footage as the primary factor for controlling house size, not
design considerations.
Is not supported by compelling, or even convincing reasons.
The overwhelming majority of neighbors oppose the oversized house - 15 by the latest
count. We ask that this permit be denied and/or returned to the Planning Commission for
further review
The Conditional Use Permit Process:
The history of this case demands a discussion of the permit issuing process itself.
Without such a discussion this, and other potential projects, cannot be fully addressed.
These issues have resulte~ in pitting neighbor against neighbor, and city against citizen.
We intend to show that:
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process appears flawed, unfairly
administered, and undermines the intent of the size limit ordinance.
That the CUP is essentially a variance and thus the test should be the same -
"compelling and convincing reasons". There is nothing in the ordinance that
describes the CUP as being more ""free flowing" as stated by the Staff, or stating
that a CUP is different than a Variance.
By issuing CUPs without compelling and convincing reasons, and then supporting
the CUPs through the hearing process, the Staff is exceeding its discretionary
powers and is setting public policy.
Such advocacy actions by the Staff foster unequal treatment. As represent.atives
of the City, the staff should be either neutral or taking positions to support the
ordinances.
o
NOV 1 8 2004
Issuing the CUP in effect shifts the Burden of Proof from defending the limit to
defending the permit; from the petitioner who wants to breach the limit to those
who want to defend it. Neighbors should not have to be defending a city
ordinance.
W'hile the Planning staff gave one neighbor no hope for a successful
pE~rmit application, a second neighbor was issued a CUP unsupported by
compelling or even convincing reasons. This gi.ves the appearance of a
preferential" system with different standards.
We ask that you take the following steps:
1. Use the same or similar criteria for CUPs as for Variances
2. Make the issuance of the CUP an open, transparent system where all
parties are treated equally.
3. Direct the Planning Commission staff to support existing ordinances or
at least not take advocate positions,
4. Deny this CUP so that no precedent is set and these issues can be
addressed.
Lew Nash
Kate Thill
'7
..
1.,' .,.!
'1
, ".
~ ~ ~<'~
.. ....
:.
f
f
t .
I~...' '"'.
'.jt
J. '
"
I J
1
Notice:is hereby given1that a PUBLIC H~..dNG'on-:the.following
request with respect to ~he ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
will be held before the ASHLAND CIlY COUNCIL on December"",
2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1176 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria appliClJble to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure t,O raise an objection concerning this application, either
In person or by letter, or failurtl to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision
maker In opportunity to respc'nd to the Issue, precludes your right of Ippeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (llJBA) on that issue. Flilure 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 preclude!l an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy-o(the'app!ication, ..ocuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if. requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for
Inspection seven days prior t~ 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 1-800-135-
2900.
PLANNING ACTION :ZOO4-110 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the
parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)
allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence
is 3,557 square feet 01" 9% greater than allowed by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential;
Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assossor's Map #: 391E 08 AD; Tax Lot: 3901.
APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff
I ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zonin~1 district
in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal
law or prog ra m.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot
with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on
the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be
considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
/~
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On NO\/~rnber 1'. '004, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
NC+l'Ce-.O"P(1 ~ttlJ(!t
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached FiR~II~gs to f/4, '. - I
C d 1'1'
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on .
(j
this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2004-110 .
ft C-Lo~fl~
Susan Yates, lanning Secretary
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 12th day of Nove"1ber, 2004.
~ OFFICIAL SEAL
. NANCY E SLOCUM
. \ } NOTARY PUBLIC ~ OREGON
...... ....... COMMISSION NO. 371650
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2007
N ary Pub IC for State of $egon
My Commission Expires: ~ I ~ --0 7
Comm-Dev\Planning\ Templates
13
391E08AA, 5100 PA #2004-110
ARCHER & DRESNER LLC
117 ALMOND ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391 E08AA, 5300 P A #2004-110
BROWN MARK K/CYNTHIA 0
171 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 4800 P A #2004-110
HOLLANDSWORTH D D/SUSAN J
55 PINE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 4101 PA #2004-110
MAAS DAVID/CANDACE BURTON
96 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 7101 PA #2004-110
MA YMAR DANIEL TRUSTEE
115 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3901 PA#2004-110
SALADOFF ROBERT TRUSTEE ET AL
1290 MUNSON DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 7100 PA #2004-110
SECHAN NEIL - TRUSTEE
101 SCENIC
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EOS.AD, 3S00 p~... 1f100~ 110
STARK JERRY IfELIZ..A\BETB D
41 CRf..NITE ST
......Sm.....\ND, OR 97S10
-391E08AA, 5400 P A #2004-110
WHITIEN J LORRAINE
175 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3902 PA #2004-110
WILLIAMS JAMES L
3105 HOL YROOD DR
OAKLAND, CA 94611
391EOS......_'\, SIOI P:\ 1fJOO~ 110
...\ReIlER It DRESNER LLC
117 ALl\IOND ST
f..Sm.....\ND, OR 97S10
391 E08AD, 3600 P A #2004-110
CHAVEZ TOM TRUSTEE
63 PINE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 4000 PA #2004-110
HOXIE DAVID A TRUSTEE FBO
174 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3200 PA #2004-110
MAC FARLANE R M
429 EIGHTH AVE
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
391E08AA, 7200 P A #2004-110
MIKESELL PENELOPE
2431 ERIE DR
CONCORD, CA 94519
391E08AA, 5200 PA #2004-110
SCHEIN STEVEN AlP ATRICIA A
167 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 4100 PA #2004-110
SJOGREN MARGARET LEIGH
180 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3301 PA #2004-110
TOEVSCORALIE
170 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3800 PA #2004-110
WIDNEY DOUGLAS
1619 KING ST
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
'Pd( tJ~ I ~-F 2
Itf
391E08AA, 4900 PA #2004-110
BARRY JON/JENNIFER JONES
134 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 3400 PA #2004-110
DELLER DAVID W TRUSTEE
200 GRAND\ilEW
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3300 PA #2004-110
JONES TRUSTEE JEFFERY R
79 PINE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 4102 PA #2004-110
MADDOX RAOUL G TRUSTEE
186 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3700 PA #2004-110
NASH LEWIS H TRUSTEE FBO
88 BAUM ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391EOS......h, ~J~OI PA #100~ 110
SCIlEIN STEVEN hfP...\TRlCIA ...\
167 CRURCIJ~
...\SBI..AND, OR 97S10
391 E08AD, 3400 P A #2004-110
STARK JERRY I/ELIZABETH D
41 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 5000 PA #2004-110
WELCH LOUISE A CO-TRUSTEE
147 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD~900 PA #2004-110
WILLIAMS JAMES L
160 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
5a-ft!<~~J-F.- /S'c ekc~
No f-/C-t:2 0 f &t.<- /2~; I
lka;1r'r:J /:2 h /0 '-I
mM(ed (1/12/0 'I ^-'-d
Alcf Il::.-e- iJ.f
PA2004-110 ~UYl ,t-/ /
Robert M. Saladoff 1-1 ~~~f'l; ~1
150 Church Street , H 1 / t:J f~
ElanniDS Cgn'\Tn-i~~-i~tLE~gs /(':1
matteS 1 0/21/0<1 ltt1<<~./ f (/IfIIJ/t
(/
MARK. & CICI OWN
171 CHURC TREET
ASHLAN OR 97520
LEW NASH
KATE THILL
88 BAUM STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
JIM & JANESE WILLLIAMS
160 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
JEFF & MELODY JO~NES T. WELCH
79 PINE STREET 147 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
EDWARD SICKELS DAV%t SANDRA CHAVEZ
170 CHURCH STREET 96 SCEN DRIVE 63 PINE STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHL. D OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
MAR~OGREN MARK. MADDOX MARGARET MA YMAR
180 C STREET 186 CHURCH STREET 115 SCENIC DRIVE
ASHLA OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
CURRENT RESIDENT (10/27/04) NEIL SECHAN BOB KUENZEL
MATT MESSNER
95 SCENIC DRIVE 101 SCENIC DRIVE 98 PINE STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
BILL EMERSON ROBERT BURSTEIN
90 FIFTH STREET (No address given)
ASHLAND OR 97520
P(l1-l: ;L ~~
15
ATTN: JODY-CLASSIFIED
PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on
December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main .StrE~et,
Ashland, Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unlE~ss the
public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel
located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted
Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the pelrcel is
3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed
by ordinance.
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
Publish: 11/27/04
P. O. No. 65437
yokf
]1 ~ \v\ t/ Y
/6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
October 27,2004
Robert M. Salado:ff
1290 Munson Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #: P A2004-11 0
Dear Robert M. Saladoff:
At its meeting of October 12, 2004 the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Conditional
Use Permit for thle property located at 150 Church Street - Assessor's Map # 39 IE 08 AD, Tax Lot 3901.
The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the October 26, 2004 meeting, is enclosed.
Please note the fOll~~:
1. A final Itl8.p prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of
prelimimuyapproval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
2.
A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval
becomes invalid.
~
Q
There is :a 15-day appeal period that must elapse before a building permit may be issued.
All of thc~ conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit
may be i:;sued. ·
Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application
would mlve to be submitted.
Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
L-
cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Mail Street
AsNand, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 641-488-5305
Fax: 641-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
17
BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD
October 12th, 2004
IN THE MATIER OF PLANNING ACTION #2004-110, REQUEST FOR A ) FINDINGS,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE 9.47 ) CONCLUSIONS
PERCENT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA ) AND ORDERS
ESTABLISHED BY CITY ORDINANCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 150 )
CHURCH STREET. )
)
APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 3901 of 39 IE 08AD is located at 150 Church Street and is zoned R..1-7.5, Single Family
Residential.
2) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new residence 9.47 percent in
excess of the maximmn permitted floor area for dwellings within a Historic District established by City
Ordinance 18.20.040.G.
3) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104 and are as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or F ederallaw
or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of
the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use
of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the
target use of the zone:
1) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area
I~
4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5) Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6) The development of adjacent properties as f!nvisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
2) The Hearings Board, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on October 12th, 2004 at
which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved
the appl:ication as presented subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Hearings Board of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHmITS
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. CC)NCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Hearings Board finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Application, Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Hearings Board finds that the proposal to construct a 3,557 square foot dwelling, 9.47
percent in excess of the maximum permitted floor area, complies with the Conditional Use
Permit criteria in Chapter 18.104. Specifically, the Hearings Board finds that the proposed
home is compatible in terms of bulk and scale with the surrounding neighborhood. The
design reduces the mass of the structure presented to the street using features including a
low-sloped root: a front yard setback in line with the existing adjacent Victorian to the west,
multiple building offsets and bump-outs responding to site conditions and providing texture
to the building envelope, a covered porch, a bay window, and large roof overhangs. The
single story rear volume steps down to minimize the mass at the street and is concealed using
the topography so that only the front volume of2,157.square feet will be seen from Church
Street.
/1'
2.3 The Hearings Board finds that all public facilities such as sewer, ,vater, electric, storm
drainage and fire protection are available or will be installed as per the conditions listed
below to serve the site and proposal.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Hearings Board concludes that
the proposal to construct a single-family residence which exceeds the Maximum Permitted
Floor Area by 9.47 percent is supported by evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2004-110. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found
to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2004-110 is denied. The following are the
'conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2. That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the parkrow prior to the
issuance ofa certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street
Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications nottxf in Section E of the
Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
3. That all conditions of the Fire Department shall be met, including but not limited to the
requirement to provide an alternative (hydrant, sprinklers, etc.) for revie,v and approval by the
Fire Department if fire flows are inadequate for the size of the structure.
/&~2-&;-&7'
/
Date '
c2l>
PA2004-110
Robert M. Saladoff
150 Church Street
Planning Commission Findings
mailed 10/27/04
MARK. & CICI BROWN
171 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
JEFF & MELODY JONfES
79 PINE STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
EDWARD SICKELS
170 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
MARGARET SJOGREN
180 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
CURRENT RESIDENT (10/27/04)
95 SCENIC DRIVE
ASHLAND OR 97520
BILL EMERSON
90 FIFTH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
ROBERT M SALADOFF
1290 MUNSON DRNE
ASHLAND OR 97520
LEW NASH
KATE THILL
88 BAUM STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
T. WELCH
147 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
DAVID MAAS
96 SCENIC DRIVE
ASHLAND OR 97520
MARK. MADDOX
186 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
NEIL SECHAN
MATI MESSNER
101 SCENIC DRIVE
ASHLAND OR 97520
ROBERT BURSTEIN
(No address given)
~oA
DAVID A HOXIE
174 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
JIM & JANESE WILLLIAMS
160 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
LORRA YNE WHITTEN
175 CHURCH STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
SANDRA CHAVEZ
63 PINE STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
MARGARET MA YMAR
115 SCENICDRNE
ASHLAND OR 97520
BOB KUENZEL
98 PINE STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
IV. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2004-110
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PARCEL LOCATED
AT 150 CHURCH STREET WITH A PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA
(MPFA) ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE. THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA FOR THE PARCEL IS 3,249 SC1UARE FEET, WHILE
THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS 3,557 SQUARE FEET OR 9% GREATER THAN ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE.
APPLICANT: ROBERT M. SALADOFF
Site Visit or Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Severson said this application was initially approved as a Type I. Two letters were received calling the action up for a public
hearing. Staff believes the initial approval should stand and the additional 308 square feet is justified. The design uses the
topography well, limits the mass to the street, steps the remainder of the building down slope and conceals the remaining mass
behind the building. The scale works with the lot and the additional area is concealed to the degree it preserves the streetscape.
The Historic Commission reviewed it last month and their discussion centered on the fact the applicant could have constructed
a 3,249 square foot structure at the street and instead proposed 2,157 square feet of mass in order to preserve the streetscape in
the historic neighborhood with the remainder down slope. The alley is the primary access for the project and is a requirement
of the partition creating this lot. Two letters were received in support of the application. The removal of the oak tree occurred
.under a properly processed Tree Removal Permit. With regard to the run-off concern, building code will require that the
applicant not direct run-off to neighboring properties but will have to go into the storm drain system. Staff recommends
approval with the attached Conditions.
PUBLIC HEARING
ROB & SUSAN SALADOFF, 1290 Munson Drive
Rob noted two points of the maximum house size ordinance. One purpose of the ordinance is creation of a graduated scale that
can accommodate larger homes on larger lots. He did a survey (copy to Commissioners) that looks at all the residential
properties within a quarter mile radius of their house. The documentation lists all the properties. He foundl the average floor
area ratio (FAR), ratio of house size to lot size, on an acre basis in the neighborhood average was .19 and their proposed
development is .20, slightly above the average. There are more properties with a higher FAR ratio in their quarter mile
neighborhood than their proposal.
Saladoffbelieves they meet the ordinance to exceed the maximum house size because they have a 27 foot setback from the
front property line. They have used a mix of materials. They have used low sloping and deep overhanging rafters, and a
number of bump outs and recesses that give modulation to the fayade. The front volume composes about 2:500 square feet of
the whole house an is connected in the back with a one-story volume that turns toward the sun and picks up views of Mt.
Ashland and is set quite a distance off the street. It helps break up the elevation from the street. The overall height of the house
is 27 feet, the maximum is 30 feet. They are in the sloping line coming down Church Street, looking at the: tops of roofs.
There will be a parking area in the rear for three cars off the alley. There will not be a garage. They will gain access to the
house through the back or the side.
Susan said they tried with the design of this house to have a house that fit nicely into the neighborhood. The ,lot has been
empty for a long time and they realize the neighbors are going to miss the empty space that is there now. They are not
blocking their side neighbor's view ofMt. Ashland. They wanted to preserve the 100 year old oak tree. One tree has been cut
down because two arborists told them if they built this house, the tree would fall down on top of it. The location of the pool is
not relevant to this action. They are taking care of the storm drainage with an easement with the neighbor. Their lot is 17,000
square feet. The house will be in proportion to the lot size.
Dawkins said at some point in time, we need to look at how big houses are. It is important how it blends in with the
neighborhood. He doesn't feel the other house sizes are relevant because they were built before the ordinance went into effect.
Susan said this house design fits with the intent of the ordinance. Rob said that was an issue at the Historic Commission.
Susan said the ordinance has the exception.
BILL EMERSON, 90 Fifth Street, is speaking on behalf of Doug Whidney, the neighbor to the east. Whitney has already stated
he is in favor of the application. He likes the size and believes the streetscape works. He handed out a photo. There is a tree on
Whitney's property. The drip edge is just to the edge of the house. The landing for the basement is about two and one-half to
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2004
~I
three feet below grade. The concern is the root system of the tree. An arborist said the roots were more on the uphill side.
Could a small part of the basement be cut away with post and pier construction and the landing placed a little further from the
tree? The tree has a 24 inch diameter.
JIM WILLIAMS, 160 Clhurch Street, lives next to the Saladoffproperty. In general, he believes the design is fine. He is opposed
to the CUP because of traffic congestion on the alley. He is upset the existing oak tree was cut down. And, the applicant
should designate a tree planting area in the location of the dripline of the fallen oak. His related his experience with the
remodel of his Victorian house.. He said a planner told them their 17 percent request for an increase in the maximum house
size would never be approved. He wants the ordinance to be administered fairly.
MARK AND CICI BROWN, 151 Church Street, read a letter from David Hoxie, 174 Church Street. Mark said the Engineering
Department wrote that the Church and Scenic intersection is the most dangerous intersection in Ashland. The Browns will be
impacted by any additional vehicle trips. They are directly across from the entrance to the alley.
Cici said the timing of the removal of the oak tree was of concern to her. The wood from the tree was not milled, but cut into
frrewood. The applic;ants have justified exceeding the square footage saying they entertain a lot. That means more cars going
up and down the alley. It seeIfis more appropriate for access to be from the roadway rather than the alley.
LEW NASH, 88 Baum Street, said the lot size is not an issue. The rear appendage of the proposed house is over 1900 square feet.
They are asking the Commission to hold the Saladoff s to the limit as established. The application is flawed. There was a
certification on an application that the factual information was adequate and supported the excess size. Nash submits that is
not true. On the initial application they listed ten properties as samples of the neighborhood norm. He calculated the average
house size of2,932. The sample omits properties that are very small. After doing his own survey, he came up with 1,708
square foot as an ave:rage home size of the ten homes in the same block as the proposed construction. These are just the houses
on Church Street, Scenic and down High Street. The average of 23 houses is 2,116 square feet. Is the limit appropriate for this
kind of neighborhood? It is more than generous. The house is massive in scale and is well oversized and should not be
allowed.
He submitted a petiti.on of 15 neighbors opposed to the application.
MELODY AND JEFF ..JONES, 79 Pine Street, lives next to the alley. Melody said the maximum house size ordinance is based on
thought out criteria. By asking for an increase in size, it diminishes the integrity of the ordinance. It took the LTM truck four
tried to get up the alley this morning. If construction trucks can't get up, she doesn't know how the alley can withstand more
traffic.
Jeff said he never got one word of a house or a tree being cut down. He is concerned with alley access especially if they
entertain. The increased traffic will create a more dangerous situation for his child. He requested they deny the request for the
additional size and that the access be moved back up to Church Street.
ROBERT BURSTEIN said he had two other arborists look at the oak tree. There were so many spikes driven in it,-that,itWQuld
have been very dangerous to cut it into wood. That was a big concern of the Saladoffs. .
Rebuttal
Saladoff said the parking was dictated by City requirements. It is posted No Parking even front of their house. It was part of
the partition requirements. They are planning to do a lot of landscaping and plantings.
Staff Resoonse
Molnar said the Street Standards direct opportunities for access from an alley in conjunction with a partition. The access is not
part of the application.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Severson noted therc~ is a report from Upper Limb It (arborist) stating the tree was decayed and would recommend removal.
The tree removal is not part of this application.
Molnar said under the CUP, they could entertain changes to ensure the health of the neighboring tree.
The Commissioners had considerable discussion and confusion about the criteria to follow for the maximum house size.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2004
3
~~
Molnar explained the Conditional Use Permit directs the Planning Commission to relate the application to the "impact" area.
That is generally defined as the notice area (200 feet withIn the boundaries of the subject parcel), On appeal, if it was raised,
that would be the relevant area.
Dawkins said the only issue for him is "size creep." He is very much in favor of size caps. He's watched this town creeping
for 58 years. Last month they had their first hearing for maximum house size. He found evidence to be somewhat compelling
to allow the CUP, but he had huge reservations. He believes the ordinance is generous. When you are looking at the scale of
the entire neighborhood, he can't really look at lot size. It is a good design but he can't approve it and will say no unless it is
hugely compelling to approve it. His hope is that they will stand firmly together on size limitations in Ashland.
Morris said this is the second time we have seen the maximum house size request. The issue he has with the ordinance is that it
is a bulk and scale ordinance but it directed toward square footage. He cannot correlate square footage to bulk and scale. The
square footage doesn't address the bulk and scale at the street. You can take square footage out and end up with a much
bulkier building or a building that does not fit. To allow the CUP to go up to 25 percent larger has to fit with how the building
fits in. The Historic Commission reviewed this according to how it appeared from the street and it fit in on the streetscape. He
believes more guidelines are needed for this ordinance. Dawkins agreed.
It is not clear to Douma what the ordinance is trying to accomplish other than leaning toward size. Does it fit in (to the impact
area)? The applicant has done a good job of designing into the landscape.
Molnar said the intent of the ordinance was to establish a figure and then give a relief valve (CUP).and it is compared with the
target use for the property. In this case, it is a single family residence at 3,250 square feet. Does the extra 308 square feet have
an adverse impact on the livability of this neighborhood when looking at bulk, scale and lot coverage? Eaeh application is a
little different and it will be a struggle to make a decision. The Historic Commission focused on the two standards with
specifics toward streetscape. They are required to look at the criteria and forward their recommendation to the Planning
Commission. They have given a fairly clear recommendation. Molnar added that "compelling reason" is usually more for a
Variance situation. CUP's are a little more free-flowing.
Should this application be heard before the full Commission? Straw Vote: Dawkins voted "yes" and Douma and Morris voted
"no."
The Commissioners had a difficult time knowing what decision to make. Should it be heard before the full Commission?
Should it be denied? Should it be approved? Is the applicant willing to extend the 120 day limit? The Commission did not
want to hold the applicant up in the process.
Dawkins moved to deny P A2004-11 O. The motion failed for a lack of a second.
Morris moved to approve P A2004-11 O. The motion failed for a lack of a second.
They asked the applicant if they were willing to extend:.tke,.120 day rule. Molnar said the Findings could be ready to adopt at
the meeting in two weeks. The Saladoffs did not wish to extend the 120 days. They asked that the Conunissioner's decision
not be prejudiced and make a decision based on the merits of the project.
Douma stated he doesn't have a reason to vote against the proposal. That is assuming that having up to 25 percent must be
coming from our elected officials thinking there are reasons why an additional size is allowed. He doesn't know what should
or could ever prevent a percent increase. The reason for his vote is to move the process forward. He is hoping an appeal is not
onerous for those that wish to appeal. If we vote to approve the project to move it forward that it will not prejudice anyone at
any level to think this was a 2:1 vote in favor. Douma/Morris m/s to approve PA2004-110.
Dawkins will vote to deny based on the criteria 1 - similarity in scale, bulk and coverage. Douma would not have concurred
with Dawkins' statement if the Historic Commission had not already weighed in with an ordinance that came out of their
impetus.
Severson asked if the Commissioners wanted to address the tree. Dawkins feels it is important and hoped the Saladoff's would
take it into consideration.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2004
4
~~
Morris said if the Council really wants to identify bulk, scale and coverage, they can't really be defmed in this ordinance. He
would hate to have an appeal to clarify an ordinance. He is afraid the Council will not clarify it and we will go through it
again. There are no l~riteria that seem to be valid based on our CUP that apply to this ordinance.
Voice Vote: The motion carried with Douma and Morris voting "yes" and Dawkins voting "no."
PLANNING ACTION 2004-114
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT THE
FRONT OF THE PROJ'ERTY AT 659 LIBERTY STREET INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ARU) WHILE CONSTRUCTING A
NEW 2 % STORY 2,32.5 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT IS
REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY AND ENTRY PORCH UPON HILLSIDE LANDS (I.E. <25%
SLOPE).
APPLICANT: Philip Weiss
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by Dawkins and Morris.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar explained the request as outlined in the Staff Report. The proposal is to construct a larger residence at the back of the
property and access ilt from a new driveway and the CUP request is to allow for the existing residence to function as an
accessory residential unit and the primary residence located at the rear of the property. It is a little unusual because of the
sequence of construc:tion. Similar applications have been approved. However, the Planning Commission denied a similar
application in 1991. The Commission believed the reference to the primary residence meant the existing residence at the time
of application. This Hearings Board can judge this application on its own merits.
Staffs guidance to the Hearings Board is to apply the CUP criteria on the project as a whole and the surrounding property.
There are some issuc::s raised by the neighbors (included in packet). Some issues refer to scale, lot coverage and architectural
compatibility. The project is a little larger than the rest of the neighborhood, but within the target use of the zone on an
oversized lot. The highest point at 27 feet complies with solar access. It was the applicant's intent to make the building
architecturally unique. He has tried to divide the house up into different volumes. Is the primary residence out of character?
Is building the pritrullry residence behind the existing structure appropriate?
There is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. They have had a geological investigation of the
property and it is stable. The report suggests long-term erosion control measures.
Should the Commission choose to approve this proposal, eight Conditions have been added.
PUBLIC HEARING
RICK VeliE, 208 Oak Street, Suite 204, project designer, said the points brought up by the neighbors were addressed in the
application. He notc::d that on Page 3 of the Staff Report, that Staff preliminarily approved the application. Vezie met with
Staff ill January of 200 1 and they designed the existing front house so it would be an accessory residential unit. Staff neve~
implied approval was guaranteed. The project was not created in a void. It was created with Staff input and a great deal of
sensitivity to the site:.
Unusual accessory rlesidential units happen. The term primary residence is not defmed in the Land Use Ordinance. AMC
1.04.020. Grammatical Interpretation - "Use of word and phrases not specifically defmed shall be construed according to the
context and approved usage of the language." The dictionary frrst defmes the word "primary" as frrst or highest in rank,
quality or importance; principle. The intent of the ordinance is clearly meant to define "primary" as frrst or highest in rank,
quality or importance. There are no other references in the ordinance to construction sequence. What possible difference
would it make if om: structure were built four years before the other? All references in the ordinance distinguish from a
primary residence by size of the structure.
The subject lot is larger than the surrounding lots. They felt a more contemporary house would be built to the rear of the lot
and not be as visible: to the neighborhood. They have tried to be architecturally compatible with the site. The lower floors are
notched into the hillside due to grade. Architectural compatibility can be difficult to quantify especially in a neighborhood
with such a broad range of architectural styles. The applicant chose to build a more traditional home along Liberty Street and
his larger more contemporary home on the rear portion of the lot.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2004
5
~4
I-J2~E~~~,~x~r~gn,= 1~Q.. 9h~I<?b. ~!r~et
"_" .e2a~,J
From:
To:
Subject:
Derek severson
Derek severson
150 Church Street
Spoke with Bill Emerson, calling on behalf of his client Doug Widney, who is a neighbor to the project.
He requests that staff clarify the minutes for council relative to Widney's request to address the large oak
on his property to ensure that Saladoff's construction does not adversely effect its rootzone. Specifically
he wants to be sure that it is clear that the references to Upper Limb-It recommendation to remove an Oak
was for the previously removed Oak on Saladoff's property, NOT the Oak on Widney's.
He would also like to make clear that the Planning Commission's intent was that the applicant would work
with Widney to address tree protection for the Oak on Widney's property in a mutually satisfactory
manner. He would prefer a condition from council which formalizes this requirement and provides an
enforceable means to protect this significant tree.
Suggested that he send memo/letter to file for inclusion in packets.
~5
From: Jim Williams <POst2jim@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Saladloff stili
Date: November 9, 2004 3:30:48 PM PST
To: nashthill@opendoor.com
Reply-To: jimw@lettE~rsandarts.com
~\~ ~Lf.., \ (0
From Jim Williams:
I am remodeling an 1890s Victorian adjacent to the
proposed Saladoff project. Ive been working to get
the building pennit for nearly a year. Remodeling a
large Victorian is nothiing like building a new home
from scratch. To preserve the historic character of
the house, our only real choice is to add square
footage, not to go in and tear down the existing
oversized rooms.
In our first casual des~Jn review with the city, Brint
Borglit of Nautilus design showed our plan for an
addition to the Victorialn which would require a
variance of approximately 17%. We hoped to leave as
much of the original stlructure as possible intact.
Associate planner Mark Knox told us flat out it would
never pass.
So we spent several thousand dollars more in the
design process cutting' away pieces of the addition
until it was underneath the cap. We went through the
Historic Commission rl9view process and they lauded us
for the degree to which we maintained the historic
nature of the home. Mark Knox attended this meeting.
We complained to Mark that the size reduction had
created too much awkwardness and irregularity in our
floor plan and that we would find great relief in a
variance as small as 1-9%.
His words to us were, "Dont even try it". He told us
that the variance was nn untested part of the new
restrictions, with only 1 or 2 applications at that
time (approximately June of this year). He said that
the planning commission was likely to enforce the cap
since the ordinance wus so new. Based on this specific
lack of support from p~:mning staff, we decided that
it would be a waste of our time to pursue the issue
further.
#################~~####
--- nashthill@opendoor.com wrote:
~"
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 12, 2004
PLANNING ACTION: 2004-110
APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff
LOCATION: 150 Church Street, 391E 08AD; Tax Lot 3901
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-I-7.5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.20 R-l Single-Family Residential
18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.70 Solar Access
18.104 Conditional Use Permits
REQUEST: A request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on
the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in eXGess of the
Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) allowed within an Historic District by ordinance. The
Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence
is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed by ordinance.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
In August of 2003 the Plapning Commission held a public hearing to review
PLANNING ACTION #2003-087, an ordinance amending single Dimily zoning
ordinance for the subject property as established limits on maximunl house sizes
in Ashland's Historic Districts. This ordinance was subsequently adopted by the
Ashland City Council (ORDINANCE #2901) and went into effect on October
23rd,2003.
The subject property is within the Skidmore Academy Historic District and as the
proposed dwelling exceeds the maximum permitted floor area (MPF A)
established by ordinance, it is subject to Conditional Use Permit approval.
The lot itself was created through a partition, PLANNING ACTI01'J #2002-130,
which was approved on December 10, 2002. Since the lot's creation, a tree
removal permit, PLANNING ACTION #2004-085, was approved on May 2ih,
2004 to remove a hazardous California Black Oak tree.
~7
Planning Department Staff originally approved the proposal as a Type I Planning
Action on August 25th, 2004. After the mailing of the public notices, two letters
were received appealing staffs decision and requesting a public hearing.
The Historic Commission reviewed the application on September 8, 2004 and
voted 6-1 to approve the submittal as presented.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
Site: The property is a vacant lot located at 150 Church Street, within the Skidmore
Academy Historic District, between Scenic Drive and Baum Street. The lot is
17,304 in size and irregularly shaped. It is 85' in width to a depth of 115' from the
front of the property, and then narrowing to a minimum of 35' at the rear. The total
lot depth is 208', as approved under the partition Plaiming Action #2002-130 that
created the lot. The property has east-facing slopes that range from 11-16%. There
are three existing mature trees on-site: a 48" diameter oak near the street at the
northwest comer, a 12" maple near the street at the northeast comer, and a 16" oak
along the north property line. No tree removal is proposed as part of this
application.
Conditional Use Permit Proposal: The zoning for the subject parcel is R-I-7.5
with 7,500 square feet being the minimum lot size. The applicant is proposing to
construct a new single family residence to front on Church Street. The proposed
design features: a low-sloped roof; a front yard setback in line with the existing
adjacent Victorian house to the west; multiple building offsets and bump-outs
responding to site conditions and providing texture to the building envelope; a
covered porch; a bay window; a one-story rear volume that steps down to
minimize the street volume while making use of the existing topography; and
large roof overhangs. Solar calculations have been provided demonstrating that
the proposal is in compliance with the Solar Access ordinance. Access is to be off
of the alley with an easement over the lot to the south as required by city Street
Standards and the partition approval creating this lot. Parking will be located to
the rear of the proposed residence.
The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to construct this new
house at a size 9% larger than permitted by the recently adopted Maximum House
Size Ordinance. The lot size is 17,304 square feet and the proposed house size is
3,557 square feet.
II. Proiect Impact
Historic District and Maximum House Size
The Skidmore Academy Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and the subject property is located in the southern portion of the district, near its
western boundary. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area provisions of the R -1 zoning
ordinance apply to Ashland's Historic Districts to address the mass and scale of new
structures and to protect the historic architecture of existing buildings through the
~<t
regulation of floor area. The ordinance also incorporated a provision allo\ving for a 25%
increase to the limits established when it can be demonstrated through the Conditional
Use Permit process that the additional floor area would not have an adverse impact on the
architectural compatibility with the historic neighborhood. In reviewing the historic
pattern of development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property staff found that
three parcels remain vacant, thirteen are contributing historic resources, one parcel is
considered historic, non-contributing, and six developed parcels are considered non-
contributing, non-historic (See Staff Exhibit A).
As noted, the project was initially approved as a Type I Administrative decision, but was
later appealed by neighbors. The appeal letters (attached) expressed concerns: that the
proposed structure's size would not fit the historic character of the neighborhood; that a
152-year old Black Oak tree had been removed; that the location of a pool near a
downslope neighbor's window would generate smells, lights, pumps, and nighttime noise
leading to conflict; and that the proposal's parking area, pool and bathhouse would
dramatically increase run-off and threaten downslope properties.
In reviewing the design in light of these concerns, staff feels that the applicant has
succeeded in reducing the visual impact of the mass, scale and bulk to a degree that fits
the streetscape and historic character of the neighborhood. From Church Street, only the
front volume of 2,157 square feet will be seen. The tree in question was removed under
permit from the Planning Department, with required public notice, based on a licensed
arborist's recommendation that the tree posed a threat of catastrophic failure. The issue of
the pool is outside the scope of the criteria for the MPF A ordinance, and could be
permitted over-the-counter at anytime without public notice. Lot coverage is within that
allowed for the zone, and building code prohibits the applicant from directing run-off to
adjacent properties.
The MPF A ordinance provides for up to 25% more floor area than is outright permitted
with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The applicant here is requesting to exceed the
outright permitted amount by 9%. Staff felt the application was justified because of the
shape and larger size of the lot, the fact that the street profile conforms to other homes in
the area (See Staff Exhibit B), and the additional square footage is not visible from the
public right-of-way.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district
in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or
F ederallaw or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
~CJ
-_._----_._._----~----~-_._.._._--_._---_._------~-_.--.--
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot
with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on
the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be
considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities.
3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area
4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
5) Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of
the proposed use.
IV. Con(:lusions and Recommendations
Overall, Staff believes that the applicant has proposed a design that effectively reduces the mass
of the home from the street, thereby preserving the streetscape of this historic neighborhood. The
proposal makes good use of the site topography in keeping the additional square footage from
being visibl~: from the street. The proposed volume does not appear to be overwhelming when
compared to the other structures in the area, as many are 2 or 2-12 stories and have steeper roof
pitches. Staff believes the applicant's proposal is justified and that all applicable criteria have
been met.
Staff recomrnends approval of the application and recommends that the following conditions be
attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
here.
2) That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the parkrow prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the
adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted
in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
3) That all conditions of the Fire Department shall be met, including but not limited to the
requirement to provide an alternative (hydrant, sprinklers, etc.) for review and approval
by the Fire Department if fire flows are inadequate for the size of the structure.
atJ
STAFF EXHIBIT A
1 I""" 1 1I~"Vllv ""'VIII.II""I.A"III~
V AC - Vacant
NH/NL; - Non-Hlstonc, Non-Contributing
H/NC - Historic, Non-Contributing
N
A
100 0 100 200 Feet
I I
. .1" = j 00' 3/
Property lines provided. for Information only, not scaleable
CITY OF
ASHLAND
STAFF EXHIBIT B
N
A
100 0 100- 200 Feet
~_ I ~^
1" = j 00 .::;;; ,4..
Property lines provided for Information only, not scaleable
CITY OF
ASHLAND
APPLICANT'S SUBMITTALS
10/12/04
3J>
t>>
~
~..::~.
~
I . '.~
".
,..~\::\'
.~,..;,;,-
\ '.
J~\J
\
i
I
1r\.
.A,....
i
:;
i
, i
1
:\..
t ~ -:: .
,,~.,.
~ "
'V,\"'\
.L_,' ... \
T"" -~ ',~ ....7.\~
~.~. f;//"
1--~=-~~- _i/
. . fIX,--,
1 ... --".-' \.
rlf"--- ..... .....~.. ......\..\.
; .... .' . ..~ " '\,
: . t___. --I' /'(~.
r p.:;::~1 / !
;,-............1 ." /' :
,..-..,- '
; .t.:...- i {' / .
ii.. _~_~--J f'. l-
.J. ~. ..---:J'tl
..~-~
. \
\\ \ \.:
. ,
\.
t \ '
'~J' 1t-
:: ~ll :if'. -
. ..... -: 0' . ,::;;,1; "\
_ r .1\11
; ,. .-~':.'. ~: ~...
:, ~".' \~.-::.//,\ p.}
. ~'\. ,,\. "'," _'. .' ."~'.. .....;~! .J I .
_c~'J'/ 1
'. '. .. ./ I ,;-
1 (/
~/~ !
i }" to:, -
...~.._"..}....;i .
~ l-<
o
00
n.-4
... .-
-- .---'
,.~ r.:l
~$
c::) ..-
.....
~"
\f t~'4 ~ :;:
u .." ~
") rf" I,
'1 :: ,
11' ...J.,J
;JIo'. t ,q. ' , \
.~J-Ul
\.'
f\ ;... Y\\
N J I/'.y
{
.,/
f
l nif:
i . ~IU
~ llh!l (')'-
~ II 1-- QO>D.
~ u II ~c::a
t f'i' :~~
I Ill!
oS
. . \. o..a' i!111
I fill i i ~ If If i ~ II ·
I f. II~ I ~ I i~ ~ I ·
& · 21D ~ i
, a I t i' ~ ~
i .. ai ~
~
\).)
~
o
n
-4
'.J
-::::2
;::"
..\..
\
......
~i~'.'.'"
,,,,'
~'.:::. -..:-:< -
.. '(
c....,n. ,.,'
.......
~",...--.--~
~ .... .'':'''''.
~.
..... ~.......
""... ",
; .
Ii
1\
\
\
! ;
: !
('
f'
)
..-- )
/.
......
"
i ~~5J
~, .' ::~,;?
~;.~:..
'"
-".>
,,~::'~~J{l
i5f~,:1,'
''t'" r~
~~ .. - '~ -4 -~..
'.11(7
""J'
I ~~., I .
'~~.vn-, "f'o-:"--'. ~
".. ~~;0"~'~:;-'
~ ~. v~ '
, ., ;~ t.,"'-" ,;.. )0 \
< ., ! \~:~.~~/ ? !
,) )-(". .
... (_.~. I r.' \',
'. r J
, -~.._ ., r' _. (
~. ..'
, ;{ ..:..
I'
..,..~
"
..- --.: -.~-....
:.1
(
7~-r!
/J,,' / ./-
)
.1_.-1
.:..... ,-' ..___..J'~
) '\
I(
l ,...
.i' (.!..,.
j " 'f
Ii "
,
/
~ .
\~'\.
/.'!--
/
I -,
V I f"\rr l::^nIOII J-\
VAC - Vacant
H/NC - Historic, Non-Contributing
\
\
'"
',., .
N
A
LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS
10/12/04
~~
Statement of Concern
Planning J~ction #2004-110
150 Churc:h St Ashland, OR 97520
As property owners of residences affected by the above proposed construction, we
oppose thc~ Conditional use Permit that allows a 9% increase above the Maximum
Permitted Roor Area. We believe that size creep destroys the character of the
neighborhood and request that existing size limits for this Historic District be enforced.
I
.1
3
~ ~ ~ \7'>>. {\ <1 k'1 tJ If .
I~ P/ <;f q '5/D Y
'-f 70/tJ, . / ~/ot
, t-
4 .' ~o.~ L\'l~/lA (}.8g-atVvJ I '11 ~\..tL{v::-k si. 1!r-jo1
6N\~ ~~~~dN~\;)~\~~~ \~~~~:f1Dt(
b ~. j! /0'rJ<' 1./' /70 C!i/~d//j/-L;
.. /'~, /
7 \ 'r1t-~ . , . f'. -~ ',,,: )11- (?J~~I)::A9/L-,)u4
I - ( I'"
~ zr~~ 1"/Lh'"~ .DOvv~ul MO~tU 9{, S(.e-"'~C 'i~0-Ol.{
9 c 'YMclNLCV\rU1"l. . ~CA'f\O\ 'Ie- C. het \J(,j k~ ~H\I? ~t. q -10 -ot!
{O -:.;y: '2{r-"(( - s c--Rn( / F,'O Cfft~t<(f-{ 1-r?-.oi
1 i . hv1(~' flt(~ f11fZ~ JrI/JpC()j- .... 'co.b cllrJ~~Joj?/ ~'t
../7. :12 VI1 i<". J' 'J,J/. - (60 C IUf.rc- k /0 - 10-0 1
1., ,I /- ,',:ryv \~ V r I (I 0. """- ..s ---
-'-- ,.>;7- V ~ .~.
~I
i 3..' rk- K, ~ \ 71 ~
/1. tJ5 caU1C J)/L., 10 ;I;,;L 0"-/
. Ma~r.e..+ ' - l_ I_II
I~~LA) 'M:4nfA(L US .sg~\t.JLIOlc#.!2':L
ot' , {, ~OM
.~
"
L~vv\ ~ ~A" ~l
~(f Jones
~~(tt
6
)0,-/0 -or.;
Mark and Cici Brown
171 Church St.
Planning Action 2004-110
of October 12. 2004\
Saladoff permit
CUP Criteria B - traffic
Criteria B: Adequate Transportation
Hoxie's alley is too narrow to handle any more transportation to the parking area. behind
the proposed property development. Different parts of the alley narrow from 18 feet to
11 feet, back to 12 feet, then down to 10 feet. Trucks cannot turn down the alley either
from very steep Church Street or from Pine Street at the bottom of the alley. A 10 foot
wide alley is not adequate for either truck or increased volumes of regular traffic"
Criteria B -2
Because of the steep grade on Church Street, the City has a resolution that states that
Church Street is at a "traffic capacity". A memorandum written in August 1991 by Jim
Olson states that Church at Scenic is one of the 10 most dangerous intersections in
Ashland.
Because the Saladoffs justify the excess floor area by stating that they intend to entertain
often, the result will be more cars using upper Church Street and turning into Hoxie's
Alley, and that turn is in close proximity to the dangerous intersection. The Planning
Commission did not adequately address this dangerous situation.
We ask that you return this Permit to the Planning Commission for a more careful review
of the traffic problems related to this development.
Mark Brown
f'^t~ I( ~
Cici Brown
c\,; O'~
l/-'
Jeff and lvlelody Jones
79 Pine St.
Planning Action 2004-110
of October 12. 2004\
Saladoff permit
CUP Criteria B - traffic
Criteria B: Adequate Transportation
We live at the bottom of Hoxie's Alley at the intersection of Pine Street and the
Alley. We are concerned about increased traffic up this very narrow alley and past our
house. W'hile we expect some increased traffic from this new development we are
concerned that Saladoffs intent to entertain often will overload the alley. We think that
other traftic solutions have not been carefully considered.
We also feel that there has been a lack of fairness to existing Victorian home-owners who
were denied - by the Planning Commission staff- the opportunity to apply for a
Conditional Use Permit. This unequal treatment of similar projects by the Staff has
caused a lot of anger in the neighborhood. We think it is caused by the lack of
understanding of this vague ordinance and its unequal application by Planning
Commission staff.
We ask you to deny this permit and to return this traffic problem to the Planning staff.
""
~e~
~~- QivvU-
Melody Jontf. ()
41
Lew Nash & Kate Thill
88 Baum St.
Planning Action 2004-110
of October 12. 2004\
Saladoff permit
Section 18.104.050
Criteria C-l
Grounds for Reversal
Similarity in Scale, Bulk and Coverage:
We contend that the Planning Commission staff has improperly issued a Conditional Use
Permit, that specific code conditions have not been met, and that the staff has arbitrarily,
and without public input, decided which code provisions apply in this case. We Icontend
that the criteria for bulk and scale have not been addressed because this permit:
Allows a breach of the size limit by over 9%.
Gives priority to design considerations at the expense of bulk and scale. The
ordinance lists square footage as the primary factor for controlling house size, not
design considerations.
Is not supported by compelling, or even convincing reasons.
The overwhelming majority of neighbors oppose the oversized house - 15 by th~~ latest
count. We ask that this permit be denied and/or returned to the Planning Commission for
further review
The Conditional Use Permit Process:
The history of this case demands a discussion of the permit issuing process itself.
Without such a discussion this, and other potential projects, cannot be fully addrc~ssed.
These issues have resulted in pitting neighbor against neighbor, and city against dtizen.
We intend to show that:
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process appears flawed, unfairlly
administered, and undermines the intent of the size limit ordinance!.
That the CUP is essentially a variance and thus the test should be the sam~e-
"compelling and convincing reasons". There is nothing in the ordinance that
describes the CUP as being more "free flowing" as stated by the Staff, or stating
that a CUP is different than a Variance.
By issuing CUPs without compelling and convincing reasons, and then supporting
the CUPs through the hearing process, the Staff is exceeding its discretionary
powers and is setting public policy.
Such advocacy actions by the Staff foster unequal treatment. As representatives
of the City, the staff should be either neutral or taking positions to SUPPOlt the
ordinances.
4~
A
Issuing the CUP in effect shifts the Burden of Proof from defending the limit to
defending the permit; from the petitioner who wants to breach the limit to those
who want to defend it. Neighbors should not have to be defending a city
ordinance.
While the Planning staff gave one neighbor no hope for a successful
pe!rmit application, a second neighbor was issued a CUP unsupported by
compelling or even convincing reasons. This gives the appearance of a
pr'eferential system with different standards.
We ask that you take the following steps:
1."Use the same or similar criteria for CUPs as for Variances
2. Make the issuance of the CUP an open, transparent system where all
parties are treated equally.
3. Direct the Planning Commission staff to support existing ordinances or
at least not take advocate positions,
4. Deny this CUP so that no precedent is set and these issues can be
addressed.
~ ~\)~
Lew Nash
~~
/~;I
'-1-3
I. [)~r~~ ~~,,~r~2.r1.~...Et~r1r1i rr9.... t\sttQ~:t~g:,~QQ4:~11Q
p~g~1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Kuenzel@aol.com>
<mclaughj@ashland.or.us>
10/10/04 3:25:07 PM
Planning Action No. 2004-110
Re: Project by Robert and Susan Salad off, property at 150 Church
Street, Planning Action No. 2004-110
Dear Mac:
I had actually hoped to be able to come to the hearing scheduled for this
matter on Tuesday, but a federal judge in Eugene ordered everyone involved in one
of my cases to a mandatory settlement conference there that day. I hope that
providing you with a few of my thoughts by email will be an appropriate way
to share my input on this matter.
To begin: My family and I live at 98 Pine Street, and are neighbors of the
affected property. On a good day, I think I could probably throw a ball from
my property to (well, I'm getting older, maybe almost to) the nearest part of
the Saladoff property. And in coming back home from business around town, we
drive up Church Street and down Hoxie's Alley (right by the property) every
day, often numerous times. I am also far from insensitive to the issue of having
new building in our neighborhood fit in appropriately -- as you know, the
huge De Boer project on Granite Street is literally right below our home and
yard, and we have thus had ample reason recently to think, and to talk among
neighbors, about the importance of using the City's infill policy in a way that is
consistent with the values and "feel" of the neighborhoods affected.
All that said, I have a difficult time understanding the concern apparently
expressed by at least one neighbor about this project. From what I understand,
the proposed design will fit very well into our historic neighborhood, uses
some of the best features of craftsman design, works with existing grades to
blend into the hillside, breaks up the volumes involved with numerous
set-backs, etc. from Church Street, and will employ natural materials and textures to
blend well with the landscape.
Although it is somewhat larger than the immediate neighboring homes, it seems
to me that a house of this size (approximately 3500 square feet) is hardly
inappropriate for a contemporary family of four. If I understand the numbers
correctly, the requested incremental space to be allowed as against the normal
entitlement is only 300 square feet. That increment, of course, is very
modest. And from any neighbor's perspective, it would certainly be less intrusive
than a small outbuilding -- which could nonetheless be much larger than the 300
square feet at issue here -- pushed back to the setback line.
Finally in this regard, as someone who loves open space, and can well
understand (remember the Granite Street project) the instinctive sadness of a
neighbor who must see what has been a vacant lot turn into someone else's home, I
still have to say that there is open space - and there is open space.
Considering the appearance of this particular em pty lot, the overall site design
proposed, including an attractive house, with patios, stone walls, and pool, seems
likely to improve the appearance of the neighborhood, measured against the
"open space" that is there now.
Finally, though I don't know how pertinent these facts may be to the planning
OCl 1 1 2fm~
L/f
I D~r.~~"~~Y~rs2rl ~ pl(3nningActigrl No. ?Q()4-:11(),
action at issue, it seems appropriate to note that I have known the Saladoffs
from the days of their exploration of the possibility of moving to our city.
They came here, as have so many of us, because they loved the community
feeling and values of Ashland, and wanted to be part of it. And that they have:
both Robert and Susan have become active contributors to our community, through
their religious congregation and in numerous civic activities. Both of them
(and their two lovely daughters) are wonderful people, and, frankly, we look
forward to having them become a part of our neighborhood.
If you think that there may be anything else helpful that I can provide you
or the Commission, or if there is some better way to communicate my thoughts, I
very much hope that you will email me back or call me at my office
(552-0142), sometime before I head off to Eugene on Tuesday morning.
Best regards,
Bob Kuenzel
cc:
<seversod@ashland.or.us>
'+5
.t(39.~...L
oel 1 \ 2rm;
Ip~~~~ sey~rs;on ~Be: 1 ~QJ:;~lJr<:;h ?t, F>lcmning A<:;tion 2Q94~ 112
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<NHS1109@aol.com>
<mclaughj@ashland.or.us>
10/9/047:43:47 AM
Re: 150 Church St., Planning Action 2004-110
Dear John,
We are writing in support of the variance requested by Rob and Susan Saladoff
for the home they are building at 150 Church St., around the corner from our
house at 101 Scenic Drive. We are aware of the plans for this house, and feel
that it will be a great addition to the neighborhood. The craftsman style
will fit well with surrounding homes including ours, and the colors, materials,
setbacks, and layout on the site will minimize any impact of the house on
smaller homes in the vicinity. The additional square footage the Saladoffs are
requesting is minimal and can easily be accomodated on the lot in a totally
unobtrusive way.
What the Saladoffs are requesting is not some monument to excess but rather a
liveable home for a family of four that will esthetically improve the block
and surroundings. W~ have known the Saladoffs for about five years now through
Temple Emek Shalom, and feel that Rob, Susan and family will be great
neighbors who will take an active interest in their surroundings. We look forward to
welcoming the Saladoff family to our neighborhood and hope that their request
for a variance will be granted.
Sincerely,
Neil Sechan and Matt Messner
cc:
<seversod@ashland.or.us>
Ifb
Page 1
OC1 " t ~N1L
4.tt~1 .
October 4, 2004
Ashland Planning Commission Hearing Board
1175 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
eCT - 5 2004
RE: Planning Action 2004-110
150 Church Street
Dear Cornmission,
Thank. you for allowing me to address the Commission via a letter and I apologize for not
being pre:sent personally, as I am out of town on business.
My major concern is the alley that connects Church Street to Pine Street. The traffic that
is presently using the alley and the increase due to additional development, the Saladoff's
new hom.e and one additional lot that fronts on the alley are going to cause a very
dangeroUls situation.
There ar(~ presently four houses that use the alley to access their driveways. The
narrowest point is 13' wide between two immovable objects, an oak tree and a rock/block
wall. Th(~ dedicated area for right of way expansion has the fore mentioned oak tree, a
fire hydrant and two additional oak trees that block any opportunity for widening the
alley due: to traffic congestion.
Per city standards and the partition of the Williams property, all new development must
also hav(~ driveway access from the alley which accounts for two more houses that will
use the alley. .
Per Derek Severson, Assistant Planner, "A "typical" SFR is assumed to generate ten
vehicle trips per day".
I would have to say that roughly sixty trips per day for this very narrow alley is an
understatement and has the potential for a hazardous situation not only for local residents
but for elnergency vehicles also!
One othe:r additional item I would like to add as to the amount of traffic that uses the
alley; Baum Street is not paved between Church Street and Pine Street. There are
numerous residents that live on Pine Street and others use the alley to avoid Baum Street
or bypass congested collector streets.
The Williams Partition approved by the City only required that a pedestrian walk way be
added to the upper part of the alley for safety purposes, but where are the cars going to go
when the:y meet? Or where are pedestrians meeting automobiles going to go? Making the
alley a one way thoroughfare has been previous dismissed.
11
One consideration that would eliminate a minimum of ten vehicle trips per day jur a
"Typical" SFR would be to use the existing driveway access on Church Street to the
Saladoff's property that the City built when they rebuilt the street. Reversing the:
hammerhead driveway that is presently proposed would allow the traffic from the
driveway to enter head first on to Church Street.
In closing, the Ashland Planning Commission Board has the opportunity to proactively
eliminate a dangerous situation for both motorists and pedestrians by redesigning the
access to the Saladoff future home now.
Respectfully,
OCT - 5 2004
David A. Hoxie
174 Church Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541 )482-0400
dhoxie@2awest.net
'-1-1
_._---_.~----_._.__.,._---~-_.~-._---------_.._.~~_...---.--.-------- --'---'~"'---------'----~---
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC Ii .~G on the following
reque~t with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE
will be held before thle ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD on October 12, 2004 at 1 :30 p.m. at the
ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1176 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are ettached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure tel 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 l)n also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that
criterion. Failure of the applic~mt to raise constitutional or other issues relating to
proposed conditions of approvEl1 with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to
respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the applicatio Icuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteria are ..vallabte 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 Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and
those in attendance concerning this request The Chair shall have the right to limit
the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable
criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after
the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to
contact Susan Yates atthe Ashland Planning Department. at 541-552-2041. OurTTY
phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
150 Church Street
PLANNING ACTION 2004-110 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the
parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)
allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence
is 3,557 square feet or l;}% greater than allowed by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential;
Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 08 AD; Tax Lot: 3901.
APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff
4GJ
(
c. ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS "
18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permi't shall.be
granted if the approval authority. finds that the propos1ed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That .the use would be in conformance with all stand;ards
within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies th'at are not implemented by any City, state, or Federal
law 'or program.
'B. That adequate capacity of c~ty facilities for waterl sewer,.
paved. ~ccess to and through the development, electricit~{, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
c. That the conditional use will have no greater adver~;e
material effect on the livability of the impact area whE~n
compared to the development of the sUbject'lot with the target
Use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use
on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to .the tarqE~t use of
the zone: "
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and "coyerage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects,on
surrounding streets. Increas'es in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass' transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of. capacity
9t facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility ~ith the impact
area. ,
4. Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6.. The development of adjacent p~opertiesas
envisioned in ,the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the
Heari~9 Authority for review of the proposed
use.
;-0
-,
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF IOREGON
County of "Iackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97!520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On SeptArnber ?3. ?004, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed env,elope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on
this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2004-110.
(fh(,)SG~
Signature of Employee
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 23ul day of SAptArnber, 2004.
r . . OFFICIAL SEAL
NANCY E SLOCUM
: .:: NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
! \.. ../ COMMISSION NO. 371650
a MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2807
..
Comm-Dev\Planning\ Templates
5/
391E08AA, 5100 PA #2004-110
ARCHER & DRESNER LLC
117 ALMOND ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 5300 PA#2004-110
BROWN MARK K/CYNTHIA 0
171 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 4800 PA#2004-110
HOLLANDSWORTH D D/SUSAN J
55 PINE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
)
391E08AD, 4101 PA#2004-110
MAAS DAVID/CANDACE BURTON
96 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND; OR 97520
391E08AA, 7101 PA#2004-110
MAYMARDANIEL TRUSTEE
115 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3901 PA#2004-110
SALADOFF ROBERT TRUSTEE ET AL
1290 MUNSON DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 7100 PA#2004-110
SECHAN NEIL - TRUSTEE
101 SCENIC
ASHLAND, OR 97520
~91E08..\l), ~SOO Ph #1004 110
STARK JERRY IIELIZMlEm D
~ 1 CRANITE ST .
ASHL..\ND, OR 97S10
"391E08AA, 5400 P A #2004-110
WHIITEN J LORRAINE
175 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3902 PA #2004-110
WILLIAMS JAMES L
3105 HOLYROOD DR
OAKLAND, CA 94611
~91E08f.f., S101 P A #1001 110
ARCHER &, DRESNER LLC
117 Al.l\lONl> ST
f...Sm.........~D, OR 97S10
39 I E08AA, 4900 PA#2004-110
BARRY JON/JENNIFER JONES
134 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3600 PA#2004-110
CHAVEZ TOM TRUSTEE
63 PINE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391 E08AA, 3400 P A #2004-110
DELLER DAVID W TRUSTEE
200 GRANDVIEW
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 4000 PA #2004-110
HOXIE DAVID A TRUSTEE FBO
174 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3300 PA #2004-110
JONES TRUSTEE JEFFERY R
79 PINE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3200 PA #2004-110
MAC FARLANE R M
429 EIGHTII AVE
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
391E08AD, 4102 PA #2004-110
MADDOX RAOUL G TRUSTEE
186 CHURQH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 7200 P A #2004-110
MIKESELL PENELOPE
2431 ERIE DR
CONCORD, CA 94519
39 I E08AD, 3700 PA #2004-110
NASH LEWIS H TRUSTEE FBO
88 BAUM ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 5200 P A #2004-110
SCHEIN STEVEN A/PATRICIAA
167 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
~91E08f-A, 15101 P f...#1004 110
SCHEIN STEVEN hIP ATRlCIf... f...
167 CHURC~
..\SRl.....ND, OR 97S20
391E08AD, 4100 PA #2004-110
SJOGREN MARGARET LEIGH
180 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
39 I E08AD, :~400 P A #2004-110
STARK JERRY I/ELIZABETH D
41 GRANITI~ ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3301 PA#2004-110
TOEVSCORALIE
170 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 5000 PA#2004-110
WELCH LOUISE A CO-TRUSTEE
147 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3800 PA #2004-110
WIDNEY DOUGLAS
1619 KING ST
SANTACRUZ, CA95060
39 I E08AD;.3900 PA #2004-110
WILLIAMS JAMES L
160 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
5~
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board on October 12,
2004 at 1:30 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. At such Public
Hearing any person is entitled to be heard.
Request 1for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel
located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted
Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is
3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed
by ordinance.
Request 1for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence located
at the front of the property at 659 Liberty Street into an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) while
constructing a new 2 % story 2,325 square foot residence at the rear of the property. A Physical
Constraints Permit is required for the construction of a portion of the driveway and entry porch
upon Hillside lands (i.e. <25% slope).
"
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities N:!, If you need special assistance to partidpate In this meeting, please
oontad: the ctyAdmlnistrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number. 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours
prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.l04 ADA Title I).
By order of the Planning Director
John Mclaughlin
Publish: 10/2104
Date e-mailed: 9/23/04
PurchasE~ Order: 65420
5a
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
September 8, 2004
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Rob Saladoff,
Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, and Jay Leighton
Absent Members: None
Council Liaison: John Morrison
Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director, Billie Boswell, Administration
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:05 p.m., Chairman Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Skibby pointed out that the National Register Nomination for the Lithia Springs Property WclS removed from the
"Old Business" section of the agenda and should be reinstated. Skibby moved to approve the August 8, 2004
minutes as revised. With a second by Krach, the motion was approved with all voting aye.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Action 2004.110
Conditional Use Permit
Robert Saladoff
150 Church Street
Rob Saladoff recused himself from the Commission as the owner of the subject property. Most members had
site visits; none had ex parte contacts.
McLaughlin clarified that Historic Commission members may not represent a client for a feE~ in front of the body
in which they sit, but Mr. Saladoff can present this action because he is the property owner and it is his own
project.
McLaughlin related that the City had received a letter from Mark & CiCi Brown of 171 Church Street, an email
from Dave Hoxy of 174 Church Street and a letter from Lou Nash and Kate Thill of 88 Baum Street. The letter
from Lew Nash and Kate Thill requested that the project be called up for a public hearing in front of the Hearings
Board, probably in October.
McLaughlin explained that the Saladoff's are proposing a new residence-on a vacant lot. The owners propose
to construct a house with total floor area in excess of of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by
ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel 3, 249 square feet, while the proposed residence
is 3,557 square feet or 90/0 greater than allowed by ordinance. The ordinance provides for up to 250/0 more floor
area with an approved Conditional Use Permit. City staff felt the application is justified because of the shape and
larger size of the lot, the fact that the street profile conforms to other homes in the area and the additional square
footage is not visible from the public right-of-ways.
5?f
----~'_._------_._-----------,-------~-~---_._-_._._---------------..--
~111' VI"
ASHLAND
Skibby confirmed that the access to the property would be off an easement alley rather from the front of the
home off Church Street. Skibby also confirmed that the connector between the two portions of the house was
included in the square footage.
There being no fur1ther questions of City staff, the applicant shared additional information regarding the design
proposal including the overall height and massing of the house, the access, size and shape of the lot and
functionality for the!ir family.
Skibby asked the applicant if the lack of access from the front and the requirement for the second entry put the
house over the maximum size. Saladoff explained no one item caused the overage, but it was a combination
of the overall desi~ln limitations and the requirements for their family.
Leighton pointed out the connector portion has a flat roof connecting the single story section in the rear and is
not visible from thE~ right-of-way.
Shostrom clarified that the square footage of the neighbor's house as listed in the Saladoffs application does
not include a proposed addition.
There being no further questions of the applicant, Shostrom opened the meeting for public comment.
Lew Nash of 88 Baum St, felt some of the criteria presented by the applicants were not factual and the scale
and impact of the' home would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Saladoff asked Mr. Nash if his calculations took into consideration of the ratio between the house and lot sizes.
Mr. Nash confirmeld they did not.
There was no further public comment.
In rebuttal, the applicant stated there was no intention to mislead. Of 27 homes in his study the ratio of house
to lot size was 17.'1 % where his house is 20.40/0. However, the scale for the size of the lot and the impact to the
neighborhood was minimal.
The public hearin~1 was closed and the Commission discussed some of the criteria issues as they related to the
Saladoffs proposal.
Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application as presented. Whitforcjcseconded the motion and it
passed in a roll ca'li vote with Giordano, Krach, Shostrom, Skibby, Swink, and Whitford voting aye and Leighton
voting nay.
Planning Action 2004-115
Conditional Use Permit
Dave & Jamie K~lufman
724 Iowa Street
Most members had site visits but no ex-parte contact. Chairman Shostrom said he had a conflict of interest due
to being employed by the owners early in the project. As a result, Shostrom recused himself and Vice Chair
Skibby took over as chair of the meeting.
McLaughlin explained the applicants had already been approved for a building permit to slightly expand the
footprint of the first floor and to add a new partial second story on their 7,137 square foot lot. This application
would add an additional 197 square feet to the second story above the garage that would cause the total square
footage of 1858 (iincluding attached garage) to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area by 8.20/0. Although
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 5, 2004
2
55
'"-II I VI"
ASHLAND
the addition adds mass to front of the house, it is stepped back 50 feet from Iowa Street and 38 feet from the
front of the home and is minimally visible from the street. City staff's opinion is because of the smaller size of
the lot in relationship to the relatively modest size of the proposed project, the mass and bulk of the home will
be comparable to the existing mix in the neighborhood.
There being no further questions of City staff, Larry Medinger, the owner's representativE~, shared additional
information regarding the design proposal and how it relates to the existing neighborhood.
Leighton asked the owners to clarify the footprint of the original house compared to what was being added both
in the approved addition and this proposed addition.
Whitford asked the owner's to explain the reasons for two front entries. The owners said that both entries were
part of the existing house, but the secondary entry, closest to the garage, was set back significantly from the
main entry at the front of the house.
Krach felt the design had a contemporary look similar to those found on modern townhouses. Medinger said
because the existing home is so small, they incorporated various hip roofs and gables and offset the second
story to add square footage to what currently is a modest craftsman design.
There being no further questions of the applicants, and no one in the audience to speak, the! public hearing was
closed.
Leighton reminded the commission that the original application for the first addition was turned down by the
Hearing Review Board due to the design being unbalanced and inconsistencies between thE~ two entry designs.
Whitford commented that with the second addition above the garage, the design was much more balanced.
Whitford moved to recommend approval of Planning Application 2004-115 subject to a r€~design of the main
entry to match the secondary entry. After discussion, Whitford amended the motion to recom'mend removing the
proposed pergola and adding a porch roof similar to the design of the other entry and presenting the revised
design to the Historic Review Board for approval. The motion was seconded by Giordano (~nd passed in a roll
call vote with all participating members voting aye.
ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
The Commission discussed reviewing "phased" projects when the full scope of the project is unknown.
McLaughlin stated-that staff needs to review the process and, possibly, require a written statement fromJbe
applicant that they are willing to take the risk that approval of the final phase and overall desi!gn could be denied.
McLaughlin also stated that communication with the applicant should be improved when a design is denied by
the Historical Review Board. He recommended that these decisions be recorded in the City's computerized
permit tracking system, Eden, so Staff can review the concerns with the applicant and give them the opportunity
to submit a revised design to the Board before issuance is approved.
Shostrom recommended the form used by the Historical Review Board be improved to provide a better record
of concerns and decisions. Skibby agreed and suggested the copies of these forms be organized in a file or
notebook that can be available. to the Board or Commission as needed. .
Discussion followed regarding design requirements necessary to begin identifying specific criteria needed to
make a good decision on Conditional Use permits with regard to the new Maximum Pe!rmitted Floor Area
ordinance.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 5, 2004
3
5; ,(:;
-_..~-------~~-_._._._----~~~----_._~~----~-----------------------..---
(,;,ITY UF
ASHLAND
OLD BUSINESS
Review Board - Following is the September schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from
3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
Sept 9th
S~3pt 16th
S~3pt 23rd
Sept 30th
Oct ih
Skibby, Leighton, Krach
Skibby, Swink, Shostrom
Skibby, Giordano, Leighton
Skibby, Whitford, Krach
Skibby, Swink, Saladoff
Proiect Assianments for Plannina Actions
P A #2000-120
PA #2002-100
P A #2003-005
P A #2003-092
P A #2004-017
PA #2004-026
P A #2004-018
P A #2004-043
P A #2004-100
PA #2004-102
PA #2004-110
PA #2004-115
485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier)
142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods)
35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn)
124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov)
364 Hargadine Street (Ken Kolar)
81 Central Avenue (Wes & Lucinda Vail)
322 Pioneer Street (AI & Sandra Carlson)
246 Catalina Drive (Dr. William Rodden)
80 Wimer (Tom & Kathy Petersen)
832 "A" Street (Ilene Rubenstein)
150 Church St (Robert M. Saladoff)
724 Iowa St (Dave and Jamie Kaufman)
Shostrom
Leighton
KripJ1)aehne
Krippaehne
Krach
Giordano
Swink
Krach
Whitford
Saladoff
Whitford
Swink
Co-Soonsorshio with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshoo - McLaughlin will have Staff discuss the
Historic Commission's desire to develop historic requirements and Conservation compatibility in the form of an
educational pamphlet or booklet and report their priorities and response back to the Commission. They will also
inform the Conservation Commission that a Historic Commission member(s) will attend their October meeting.
(A motion was made by Leighton to extend the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. Swink seconded the
motion and it was passed unanimously).
Memo to Council Fteaardina Authorization for Multiole Listina Survey for National Reaister of Historic Places-
Houses or areas outside of the Historic Districts will require individual nominations as a Special Designation.
Possible National Heaister Nomination for Lithia Sorinas Prooertv - McLaughlin said the Parks Director indicated
the lease extension is on hold until it is known whether or not pursuing a National Historic designation would
affect the Gun Club existence. Additional discussion with Parks needed to determine specific information they
need to make their decision.
Brown Baa Lunch Ideas - Old House Fair - Leighton will follow up.
Sinale Familv Residential Desian Standards - A sub-committee may need to be appointed to start developing
standards.
NEW BUSINESS
Krach will review nnail and share with the Committee any items of note.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 5, 2004
4
57
\..IIYUt
ASHLAND
McLaughlin informed the Committee that training is being developed to streamline meetings to minimize the time
commitments of all of the commissions. This information will be shared with the Commission in the near future.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Historic Commission meeting will be on October 6,2004 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Skibby and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn
the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
August 5, 2004
5
S8
:SEP ~., 7 2004
...
Planning Commission
September 7, 2004
We would like to challenge Planning Action 2003-110
Criteria C-7
(7) The historic nature of the neighborhood.
The proposed larger home does not fit the historic
character of our neighborhood. Instead of added square
footage, the neighborhood would benefit from new champion
oak trees replanted where the oak was removed.
Since Church Street is known for its majestic old oak
trees. Jim and Janese Williams, the former owners of the
property and the Saladoff's talked about the health and
perserving the oak trees for over 1 year (go to the notes
in the planning comrnision meeting). After a year's
discussion about the health of the oak trees and
perserving them, all of a sudden they decide to remove the
tree rigrht before they ask for a conditional use permit.
It was a SAD day for our historic neighborhood to witness
the removal of this 152 year old Black Oak tree
Mark and Cici Brown
171 Church Street
Ashland
eic,'~
/vt1J4'k /C. D~
X;,~f;S>
~y;'G '1 '\.~~\
~~\\
~o
I ,\v..l
51
Planning Action 2004-110
150 Church St.
Ashland, OR
SEP = 7 2004
....
Lewis Nash
88 Baum St, Ashland
telephone 552-9111
To the Ashland Planning Commission
As property owners of a residence adjacent to the proposed construction we request at public
hearing on the above Conditional Use Permit. We base our request on the following approval
criteria under section 18.104.050.
Criteria C-l. Similarity in scale, bulk and coverage
While well designed and conforming to the landscape, the proposed structure is 9% over the
maximum permitted floor area in this Historic District. The proposed size (3,557 square feet) is
somewhere between half-again-as-Iarge and twice-as-Iarge as most of the residences in the
neighborhood. This is not the "somewhat higher than the average" size as stated in the proposal.
To exceed the already generous Historical District size limit of 3249 square feet is unjustified.
We believe that "size creep" will destroy the character of this neighborhood, as it has done in so
many places. We request that the existing size limits for this Historical District be enforced. The
planning staff has already turned down at least two recent requests for house size expansion in
this neighborhood - at least informally - and this request should be turned down as wf~ll.
Criteria C-5 Livability of the impact area: Generation of noise, light, and glare
Our house is down-slope from, and within 30 feet of, the shared property line. The extra size of
the proposed house has pushed the location of the planned swimming pool to within 50 feet of,
and at the same level as, our second story master bedroom widow. This is the window that we
sleep with open all year for cross ventilation.
This is a quiet neighborhood where sound clearly carries far. While we understand that closer
neighbors will mean more noise, the position of the pool with its smells, lights, pumps, and
potential nighttime noise almost assures continuing conflict. The Livability of our home would
decline drastically.
Criteria C-7 Livability of the impact area: Other factors
With plans for a large parking lot, a large swimming pool and a large bathhouse, the surface water
run-off will dramatically increase. That water will flow through several properties down-slope,
including ours, and flooding with corresponding water damage can become a yearly threat.
Please seriously review this proposed construction in light of the above issues.
~\,'-- \\) 0/~
r,Y' f)) '/J
1" tt'L J /J- /
Kate Thill
Lew Nash
~()
~. uereK, sev~fson- Ke: t"' I-\~LU':'4- II U
I<~.~ _ ~~ Il [1*" ~ L
)
'=";':';<<';0'-:-" ...... ...... .;." "," ...:""y.:.,:...:.:.*>>>....":...:~....*:.x-..>>>>.->>l':.:-...
:,..- _....~...r-~:\.
I
wwmw.!: C\~t:: " !J
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Derek severson
Dave Hoxie
9/7/04 11 :54:56 AM
Re: PA #2004-110 150 Church St.
>>> "Dave Hoxie" <dhoxie@qwest.net> 9/1/04 1 :02:58 PM >>>
September 1, 2004
Derek,
This morning I reviewed the application in your office for the above
mentioned project and would like some clarity on a few items before
deciding weather to request a public hearing or not. If you could reply
back to me in a timely manner, giving me enough time to gather my
thoughts on wleather to request the hearing would be greatly appreciated.
1) How many trips per day will this house generate to the existing 10'
wide alley that the driveway will enter? Not to Church St. but to the alley.
A typical SFR~ is assumed to generate 10 vehicle trips per day. Primary vehicle access is to be
from the alley (as required by city standards and the partition creating this lot) so I believe the bulk
of these trips will be to the alley.
2) Will the driveway be paved from the property line to the alley?
Upon completion of this project or future development?
The applicant indicates that his parking area and the easement driveway will be paved so this
should occur' with this project.
3) Where the driveway enters the alley, which is not shown on the
plans, there is an oak tree that will fall into the Visual Clearance
safety of the intersection. Can you inform me as to how this will
be addressed for safety assurance?
City vision clearance standards apply to intersections of streets and alleys, rather than where
driveways enter an alley. Given that it is an existing situation with an established tree, the city
would not re1quire removal of the tree. .
4) There was mention of an open ditch to remove surface water but not
where it was to terminate. Will this ditch allow water to just dump on
to the surface of the alley which has no storm drain system?
The trench drain is described in the applicants submittal as being to collect sheet flows from the
driveway and parking area to prevent water from flowing onto sidewalks, public rights of way or
abutting prolperties. Typically, these types of drains empty into the storm sewer system and that
should be the case here, too.
5) Pool House: What is the correct square footage of the building?
One location :states 213 sq. ft., it measures out at 225-1/2 sq. ft., and
the last location states it will be 352 sq. ft. I believe.
From the plans, the 352 sq ft number appears to be what was used in the impervious surface
calculations by the landscape architect. The poolhouse itself scales out close to the 213 .
mentioned by the applicant and I believe the additional square footage is a covered patio area in
I; .I,
N uereK severson - Ke: t-'A 1fLUU4-"1 -I U "I OLJ. ~1'1'-l(cn ~L
w ra~t? L..%
front of the pool house. This square footage does not come into play for the maximum permitted
floor area calculation and lot coverage is not an issue, so the discrepancy can be resc)lved at
building permit submittal.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to receiving your reply.
Dave Hoxie
174 Church St.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
482-0400 home
821-7455 cell
b~
I he AShlana t'lannmg Ut~panmen, prellr.l1.tnaruy approvea mls
request on August 25, 2004. This action 'j be reviewed by the
Ashland Planning Commission Hearingsobard at 1 :30 p.m. on
September 14, 2004 at tht~ Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon. No Dublic testimonv is allowed at this
review.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning
Commission on this action.
To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in the
Planning Department, 61 Winburn Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on
September 7,2004. The written request for the public hearing must
include your name, addres~, the file number of the planning action and
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or
modifi~ based on the applkable criteria. If vou do not SPECIFICALLY
REQUEST A PUBLIC HEABING bvthe time and date stated above.
there will be no Dublic te!rtimonv oermitted.
If you have questions or commen1ts concerning this request, ple8$G.fQelfr8&to ~
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552~2041. '
IT a nearing IS requ~~~a, 11 Will De scneuUlea TOr me TOllowmg
month. Unless tt ~) 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.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.
Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient Specificity to afford the
decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue. precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify
which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of
appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or
other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to
allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in
circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost. if requested. A copy of the Staff Report 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.
Our TTY phone.humber is 1-800-735-2900.
PA#2004-110
150 Church Street
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on September 8, 2004, 7:00 p.m. in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-110 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the
parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)
allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence
is 3,557 square feet or ~l% greater than allowed by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential;
Zoning: R-1-7.5; Asses:sor's Map #: 39 1 E 08 AD; Tax Lot: 3901.
APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff
~~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS .
18.104. 050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permi"t shall be
granted if the approval authority. finds that the propos4ed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That .the use would be in conformance with all standards
within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, state, or Federal
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of c~ty f'acilities for waterlr sewer,_
paved. ~ccess to and through the development, electricit~r, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
c. That the conditional use will have no greater adverf;e
material effect on the livability of the impact area whE~n
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use
on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the targE~t use of
the zone: .
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and.coyerage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increas'es in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass' transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of. capacity
9f facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact
area. .
4. Air quality, including the gene~ation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6~ The development of adjacent p~opertiesas
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
blf
, :--..
. j
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of .Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On AIIOllst '6. '004, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on
this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2004-110 .
~QQ
Signature of Employee
SIGINED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th day of AIIOllst, 2004.
[j OFFICIAL SEAL
NANCY E SLOCUM
\ J NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
...... ..,/ COMMISSION NO. 371650
'. .. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2007
~ [] t;~
N ary Mf.c for State of Oregon
My Commission Expires: 9-/8"'0,7
Comm-Dev\Planning\ Templates
bE
391E08AA, 5100 PA #2004-110
ARCHER & DRESNER LLC
117 ALMOND ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 5300 PA #2004-110
BROWN MARK K/CYNTHIA 0
171 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 4800 PA #2004-110
HOLLANDSWORTH D D/SUSAN J
55 PINE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
I
391E08AD, 4101 PA #2004-110
MAAS DAVID/CANDACE BURTON
96 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND; OR 97520
391E08AA, 7101 PA#2004-110
MAYMAR DANIEL TRUSTEE
115 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3901 PA #2004-110
SALADOFF ROBERT TRUSTEE ET AL
1290 MUNSON DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 7100 PA #2004-110
SECHAN NEIL - TRUSTEE
101 SCENIC
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91E98,:\D, JS99 P'A\ #1991 119
ST.ARK JERRY IlELIL\BETH D
~ 1 CR".NITE ST
ASHLi\...l\lD, OR 97S19
391E08AA, 5400 PA #2004-110
WHITTEN J LORRAINE
175 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3902 PA #2004-110
WILLIAMS JAMES L
3105 HOLYROOD DR
OAKLAND, CA 94611
J91E98t_..~ S191 p~.... #1991 119
ARCHER & DRESNER LLC
117 ~\L~IOND ST
~\SHL~"aND, OR 97S19
391E08AA, 4900 PA #2004-110
BARRY JON/JENNIFER JONES
134 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3600 PA #2004-110
CHAVEZ TOM TRUSTEE
63 PINE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 3400 PA #2004-110
DELLER DAVID W TRUSTEE
200 GRANDVIEW
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 4000 PA #2004-110
HOXIE DAVID A TRUSTEE FBO
174 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3300 PA #2004-1 10
JONES TRUSTEE JEFFERY R
79 PINE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3200 PA #2004-110
MAC F ARLANE R M
429 EIGHTH AVE
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
391E08AD, 4102 PA #2004-110
MADDOX RAOUL G TRUSTEE
186 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 7200 PA #2004-110
NITKESELLPENELOPE
2431 ERIE DR
CONCORD, CA 94519
391E08AD, 3700 PA #2004-110
NASH LEWIS H TRUSTEE FBO
88 BAUM ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 5200 PA #2004-110
SCHEIN STEVEN AlP ATRlCIA A
167 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
J91E98~"_\, 5:191 P'A....1t1991 119
SCHEIN STI:VEN f..JPt..TRICI..... ~\
167 CHURCII~
~'\SHLfaND, OR 97S19
391E08AD, 4100 PA #2004-110
SJOGREN MARGARET LEIGH
180 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3400 PA #2004-110
STARK JERRY IlELIZABETH D
41 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3301 PA #2004-110
TOEVS CORALIE
170 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AA, 5000 PA #2004-110
WELCH LOUISE A CO-TRUSTEE
147 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
391E08AD, 3800 PA #2004-110
WIDNEY DOUGLAS
1619 KING ST
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
391E08AD, 3900 PA #2004-110
WILLIAMS JAMES L
160 CHURCH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
~it,
t -.
ATTN: LEGAL. PUBLICATIONS (JODY)
MEETING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved the following
requests. The al~tions will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1 :30
p.m. on September 14, 2004 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. No
public testimony is allowed at this review. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to make a
written request f()r a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission prior to 3:00 p.m.,
September 7,2004 to the Planning Department, 51Winbum Way, Ashland, OR.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150
Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) allowed by
ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is
3,557 square feet or 90/0 greater than allowed by ordinance.
Request to divide the existing property into two parcels (Le. two-lot Land Partition) for the property located at 1095
S. Mountain Avenue. The application does not involve any -Development" as defined in 18.62.030 D. at this time.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence located at the front of the
property at 659 liberty Street into an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) while constructing a new 2 % story 2,325
square foot resideince at the rear of the property. A Physical Constraints Permit is required for the construction of a
portion of the driVl3way and entry porch upon Hillside Lands (i.e.<25% slope).
Conditional Use Permit for a transfer of ownership for a one-unit traveler's accommodation located at 407 North
Main Street.
In compliance with th~ Americans with Disabilities Ad, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please oontact the City
AdmInistrator's office in (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-29(0). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enabie the dty to
make reasonabie arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 a=R 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Planning Director
John McLaughlin
Publish: 9/2104
Date a-mailed: 8/26/04
Purchase Order: 65413
~1
~\
--";,
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Historic Commission em
September 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the offices of Community Development and
Engineering Services (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. At
such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on thE! parcel
located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted
Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is
3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater them allowed
by ordinance. .
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the total floor area of an existing siingle-family
residence located at 724 Iowa Street, 9~2% beyond Maximum Permitted Floor Arl~a (MPFA)
allowed by ordinance.
. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities kJ:, If you need special assistance to participate In this m!eting, please
contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification '72 hours
prior to the meeting will enabie the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Planning Director
John McLaughlin
Publish: 8/30/04
Date e-mailed: 8/26/04
Purchase Order: 65413
0~
-- -'-----_.._-'---_._--"._-_._---~----_._-_.......,._--,---
DateRleceived
C?b{pl{
File No.
I -~ Type /
7q DO
ZOt) c.{ -f I 0 Filing Fee t 3.
P t{ \' d 61'7b
Zoning
Comp Plan Designation
Receipt #
o Minor Land Partition o Outline Plan (# Units ). . 0 Zone Change
o Variance o Final Plan . r;J Comp Plan Change
~nditional Use Permit o Site Review .' 0 Staff Permit
o Boundary Line Adjustment o Annexation .0 . Solar Waiver
APPLICATION IS FOR:
Application pertains to
chapter, section, subpart
of the Ashland Municipal Code.
APPLICANT
/'
Address
Robvf fJ1. Sct(etc!Df(
/2 '10 tnU/1. ~l?n
. . Phone
L/lr2~J772
'Name
PROPERTY OWNER
Name
SQjY\L
Phone
Address
SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT' (may need to use back page)
Name
Phone
Address
DESCRIPTION OF PR~OPERTY
Street Address
Assessor':s Map No. 39 1 E ~ A .D
ISO
(!, h u rUt'
sf_
Tax Lot(s)
. 390 /
tfvj 2tJ03
When was the above described property acquired by owner?
On.a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of property or improvements
contemplated, as well as )'ierd set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract
develo fS. Give date said restrictions ex ire. .
FINDINGS OF FACT
Type your response to the appropri~te 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 su rted b eviidence. List the findin s criteria and the evidence which su........orts it.
tl'j
, ,I:h~lJJ.liy,ff1jpfyJ#ltttlf~ $tatements "~ infOrmation ,contai/'l~f/Jn-!his apf'tion, including the enc!os(3c1 ____
--~,-.drawiR'gs~d-the-required findings ~I fact,-anrlir1flIresPf3cts true andco,-,;:Jct. I understand that all .
property pins must be shown on the drawings_and_visible upon-s}te-inspection. In the event the pins-are
noT shown or their location found to be incon-ect, the owner assumes full responsibility.
I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish:
1) that I produced sufficient ftictual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
- .2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
{3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
. 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
. .
. . .
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly laany
'structures being built in re.liance thereon being required to be removed at"my expense. If I have any . .
doubts, I am !Jdvised to seek competent professional advic;e and assistance. .
,.
cf-~lfzy
l)ate ': '
. As oWIJer: of the pro~rtY involved in this ~quest, I have read and understood .the comJ>/ete application and
. its consequences to me as a property owner. . ".
. ~\
~~/!;y
../.
Date -
. .
NOTICE: Section 15,04.240 of the AshlattdMunidpa1 Cede prohibits the occupancy of a bUilding or'a release,oj:'
'.: utilitil!' prior.to the isSU{l1lCe of a Certificate ofOcctlJ?Q.ncy by the Building DivisiQn:.AND the C(~mpletion of all zoning .
requirements and conditions imposed by the Plannmg Commission UNLESS a satisfactory perjc)rmance bond has
been Posted to' ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in-prosecution..and/o.r d.iscpnn~ctionof utilities.
1f)
;.:,..":.:.- "'~. ~:''(~~' ~:_~,~.'~~~J ~"l;).
...,..'
/. 4-', ~ .:.. .... .. :-'. ."'..
APPLICANT'S FINDINGS
8/6/04
71
. ROBERT SALADOFF
ARCHITECT
II II II
August 4, 2004
Planning Commission and
Ashland Planning Department
City of Ashland
Re: Conditional Use Findings of Fact, Site Review
Project: Saladoff Residence (New Residence)
1 SO Church Street
Ashland, Oregon
Zoning: R-1-7.5
Applicant: Robert and Susan Saladoff
lbis request is being submitted for a Conditional Use Permit (Section
18.24.040 K.) for exceeding the MPF A (Maximum Permitted Floor Area) for
dwellings within the Historic District.
The relevant Ordinance Sections and Design Standards for 'Conditional Use
Permit are described in the following Findings of Fact.
I
of>
Findings by the Applicant/Agent are inserted immediately following ea.ch
section of the ordinance.
lbis application is being filed concurrently with an application for site design
approval !:IDder Chapter 18.72.
R1;full~0/
Rooert Saladofl Architect
7~
545 A Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.482.3772 fax 541.552.9512 salarch@mind.net
AU6 0 6 2804
Findings of Fact
For
Conditional Use Permit
Application for exceeding the MPFA
in the Historic District I
Site Review
Subject Property:
150 Church Street
Assessor's Map 391 E08AD Tax Lot 3901
Submitted to:
City of Ashland Planning Department
Submitted for:
Robert and Susan Saladoff
I
Prepared by:
Robert Saladoff
Robert Saladoff, Architect
545 A Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
73
AUG 0 6 7004
Following are the Chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and sections of the Design
Standards deemed applicable, in whole or in part, to this Site Review & CDnditionalUse
applicatio!1:
ORDINANCES
Page
18.20 - Single-Family Residential District
18.20.040.E. to H - Establishing Limits on Maximum Hoyse
Sizes in the Historic District
18.61 - Tree PreselVation and Protection
18.62 - Physical and Environmental CDnstraints
18.68 - General Regulations
18.70 - Solar Access
18.72 - Site Design & Use Standards
18.92 - Off-Street Parking
18.104 - Conditional Use Permits
SIlE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
Section II - Approval Standards and Policies
A Ordinance Landscaping Requirements
D. Parking lot Landscaping and Screening Standards
E. Street Tree Standards
Section III - Water CDnselVing Landscaping
Guidelines and Policies
EXHIBITS:
CDver Sheet
Site Plan
Floor Plans
Exterior Elevations
Sections
Landscaping Plan
A1.1
A2.1
A3.1,AJ.2,AJ .3
A4.1,A4.2
A4.3
L-1
Photographs: Site and neighborhood
7L/
1
3
7
10
12
15
17
21
25
29
29
.31
.32
AUG 0 6 2004
Gapter 18.20: R-1 Single-Family Residential District
18.20.010 Purpose
The purpose of the R-l district is to stabilize and protect the suburban characteristics of the
district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life.
18.20.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are pennitted outright:
A Single family dwelling, utilizing at least two of the following design features to provide
visual relief along the front of the residence:
1. Dormers
2. Gables
3. Recessed entries
4. Covered porch entries
5. Cupolas
6. Pillars or posts
7. Bayw:indow (min. 12" projection)
8. Eaves (min. 6" projection)
9. Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16") (Ord. 2612 S2, 1991)
· (1Jmplies: The proposed use is for a single-family dwelling that includes the
following features: low-sloped roof and donners minimizing height of the
second floor; front yard setback in-line with existing adjacent Victorian house
to west; multiple building offsets and bump-outs responding to site
conditions and prodding texture to building enrelope; corered porch, bay
7.vindow, one-story rearwlume steps down to minimize street wlume and
t.naking use of existing topography; and large roof orerhangs.
18.20.040 General regulations
A Minirnum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-l zone shall be five thousand (5,000)
square feet, except six thousand (6,000) square feet for comer lots. R-l areas may be
designed for seventy-five hundred (7,500), or ten thousand (10,000) square foot minimum
lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make larger sizes necessary. Pennitted lot sizes
shall be indicated by a number following the R-l notation which represents allowable
minimUIn square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-1-S
R-1-7.5
R-1-10
5,000 square feet
7,500 square feet
10,000 square feet
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
7~
150 Church Street
AU6 0 6 209'
2
· Complies: The lot is zoned R-1-7.5 and is 17,304 SF in area.
B. Minimum lot width:
Interior lots
Comer lots
All R-1-7.5 lots
All R-1-10 lots
50 feet
60 feet
65 feet
75 feet
· Complies: The lot is irregularly shaped, but is 85'-0" in width to a depth of
115'-0"from thefront of the property, and then narrows to a minimum of35'-
0" at the rear of the property.
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum depth
of one hundred fifty (150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further development of the
back of the lot. Maximum lot depth requirements shall not apply to lots created by a minor
land panition. No lot shall have a width greater than its depth, and no lot shall exceed one
hundred fifty (150) feet in width. (Ord. 2052, 1979; Ord. 2425 S3, 1988)
· Complies with special conditions: Exis ting lot depth is 208'-0" (approved per
Planning Action 2002-130 Land Partition), but lot width at rear of property
(35'-0" precludes the derelopment of the rear of the lot.
D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15 feet excluding
garages. Unenclosed porches shall be pennitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the
width of any existing public utility easement, whichever is greater; from the front property
line. All garages accessed from the front shall have a minimum setback of 20' from the front
propeny line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a comer lot abutting a public street shall
have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story.
In addition, the setbacks must comply with Otapter 18.70 which provides for Solar Access.
(Ord. 2097_ S5, 1980; Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752, 1995)
· Complies:
Main House: The proposed front yard (north) is 27'-0"to the house and 20'-0"
to the edge of the corered porch. The side yard setbacks are a minimum of
10'-0'~ but typically 14'-0"to the east, and a minimum of26'-0"to the west.
The rear yard setback is approximately 120'-0'~
Pool House: The proposed pool house sits behind the main house
approximately 60'-0" and has an east side yard setback of 40'-0" and fAr west
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
76
150 Church Street
AU6 0 6 2004
3
side yard setback of a minimum of 6~O'~ It is setback from the rear property
line approximately 52~O'~ .
S~~e Solar Access setbacks later in these findings.
E. Maxunum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and
one-half (2 1/2) stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the Historic District
shall not lexceed a height of 30 feet.
· C'.omplies: The strncture is 2-stories in height and is 27~O"in height at the
highest ridge. This measurement is taken from the natural grade directly
below the highest point of the roof
Maximurn Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (500/0) percent in an R-1-5 District,
forty-five (450/0) percent in an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (400/0) percent in an R-1-10
. District.
· C;omplies: The total impemous surface is 45%.
G. Maxitnum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District. The maximwn
permitted floor area for primary dwellings within the Historic District shall be determined by
the follo'wing:
1. ~e nwcimum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross
floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surlaces of the building,
including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the suucture with at
least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements,
detached garages, detached accessory suuctures, or detached accessory residential units.
Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shallbe separated from
other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open
structures ~y connect the structures.
2. ~e following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum Pennitted Floor Area
(MPFA), provided however, that regardless of lot size, the :MPFA shall not exceed 3;249 sq.
ft.:
Lot area x Adj. Factor = Adjusted lot area x 0.38 FAR = MPF A
(from Table 1)
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
150 Church Street
77
AUG' 06 2004
4
, TABLE 1 Adjustment Fact~r Table
1~:~~~j~~~r~~....]::t~~~J~~~;r~J~~~~...~ ~~~t~~..~ l~t.~:.....I~~or
r~25CXJ J~Fl-7~~~~;--I~~;---]o.6~___~ ..F~~Ol~cro~I;~~ ----
1;;- .... ..111:16 .. .117001-7500il~.85 jl~~;-.. .. ...11.064 . ..... .. i116CXJl-165oo :[054
l~f~t~jl~:1~_~._...JI~~~~~~~I~:8=. ......_~.....jl~!;-__~ .'1~:~=~__J~~~~~~~~~.J[~.=3~_....
il;tjl=~~~__JI~~8~ooJI~:~~. ._-_!~;~_JI~:~~_JI~oo~~~~oo_~[~~=_._. ...'
!I;;- ..... ,11:~. ......... ...J[8=~~~ 9Q(X)110.77___.... ]I.~;f~- ... .. ....1[0.60. ....... . JI1~501~ 18Q(X) [O.;l=-J
Il;;~ ... '11'00 ..... ..... !19CXJ1~95oo 110.75 ..,1 ~~-. ...110:59.. ...........1118001-18500 '[0:50
!l;- ....._..11~.~7 .~ ...Jl~~__~ .,10.73 . ... ... .. _il~ ;;~_ . .II~:=~........ _111~85~1~19Q(X).i [0.49.
il~;~___J~:~~.__JI;~~._~~I~~~_~_llt;;:_. ~._II~'=~._J~~001~~~_5~~I[~~_
::---[0.~1.. .....1 ~~;~I~;-jl~~;-_110:56___1~;:d]0.~--1
MPF A calculation: The totalfloor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary
dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building is 3,557 SF. This excludes
the basement, coU?red porch, and detached pool house.
The total proposed floor area:
3,557 SF
Lot area of 17,304 SF with adjustment factor of .52 per Table 1: 8,998 SF
MPFA = adjusted lot area of 8, 998 SF x .38 FAR
3,419 SF
Maximum allowable SF in historic district:
3,249 SF
The proposed 3,?57 SF total floor area excee4s the 3,249 SF maximum by 9~~, or 308 SF.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
150 Church Street
7f
AUG 0 6 20n4
- -_._._--"---'-_.,.__._-~----,--------_._._,_._-~--- ..~-~-_.__.-
5
H New single family structures and additions to existing single family structures within the
Historic J)istrict shall not exceed the :MPF A unless a Conditional Use Pennit is obtained. In
no.case shall the permitted floor area exceed 250/0 of the :MPF A.In addition to the findings
for a Conditional Use Permit, the standards noted in Section IV of the Site Design and Use
Standards shall be considered in the request."
. 11Jis application requests a conditional use pe nn it for exceeding the MPFA
by 9%. There are four primary factors contributing to the jus tification for this
r~~quest.
1.. OrerallMassing and Height: The height of the proposed house is 27~O"
ftom the natural grade to the high point of the ridge of the roof. The s lope of
tbis site is relatirely consistent with the other sites up and down Church
Street. Subsequently, the proposed new house appears to ~~teps-down"
C;hurch Street, minimizing its apparent height eren further, (see attached
(1Jurch Street section drawing for more infonnation) The width of the house
fi'acing Church Street is just 36~O", consistent with the neighboring homes.
'Joe massing is broken up into two connecting wlumes, a two-story main
bouse wlume facing the street, and a single-story family room and master
bedroom suite at the rear of the house. This ~~eparation"reduces the dsible
1nassing at the street. To enhance this effect, the rear single-story wlume
,r!so takes adwntage of the sloping site, and ~~teps-down"away from the
street. The front two-story wlume is 2,157 SF, with the rear one-story wlume
the remaining 1,400 SF.
~The usual height and massing of the house is also minimized by the
generous front year setback of27~0"; the low sloping second-story roof; the
1'lzultiple bump-outs and recesses along its facades; and the mix of exterior
surface materials that provide added texture to the house.
2. Conformance to Section IV (Historic District Derelopment StandardsJin_
Site Design And Use Standards. The general design of the project carefully
considers the following standards under this chapter:
,a) Height- The height of the proposed house is 27~O"from the natural grade
to the high point of the ridge of the roof, under the maximum height limit of
30~O"for historic districts.
b) Scale- The size and proportion of the proposed residence (residential
conditioned floor area of 3,557 on .40 acres) is somewhat higher than the
a~rage, but within the scale range of other existing residences in the
neighborhood. From Church Street, howerer, only the front wlume of2,157
can be seen.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
71
150 Church Street
AU6 0 6 2001
Map #
391E08AD
Tax Lot #
3900
4000
4101
3800
3301
5300
5201
5200
5000
4900
391E08AA
Lot Area
.52 acre
..40 acre
.28 acre
.29 acre
.40 acre
.27 acre
.40 acre
.36 acre
.43 acre
.30 acre
6
Area of Residence
3,156 (proposed)
2,564
2,488
2,536
3,467
2,642
2,851 with 1,042 accessory unit
2,597
2,492
4,532 with 1,026 accessory unit
c)-The Massing (as preuously stated) is broken-up with wriations in the wall
setbacks and bump-outs, wrying roof heights, and the usual separation of
the front two-story wlume from the rear one-story wlume. From the street,
only the 2,157 two-story wlume can be seen.
d)Setback- The setback from the street is 27tO" to the front of the hOI4!se, and
20tO"to the covered porch is consistent with the existing house to tht.~ flJest
and is significantly greater than the minimum requirement of 15tO"to the
hous e.
e)RoofShapes- The ~t:raftsmen"style roofs (i.e. low slope, large overbangs,
exposed rafter tails, and numerous setbacks) enhance the streetscape with
this infill project and are consistent with several other existing homes up and
down Church Street.
f) Rhythm of Openings- The alternating pattern of wall area with windows and
doors in all usible facades is consistent with the style of the proposed
residence. Special attention to the street elewtion presents a ~t:lassic'"
craftsmen style with segmented windows and detailed wood front door and
sidelights.
g) Platfonns- The base of the proposed residence is anchored with a sloping
ledge stone covering the full width of the street fa~ade and is capped by a
wood water table trim board at the floor level. The base wries in height from
approximately 1tO" at the uphill side to approximately 6tO" and the downhill
side.
h)Directional Express io n- The proposed residence makes use of its wried site
conditions including: the main two-story wlume presents itself to the' street;
the house opens-up to the uphill (west) and rear (south) landscapes with
increased glazing and doors to make use of the great dews and priwc'y; the
rear one-story wlume steps-down with the sloping landscape towards the rear
of the property. The residence includes rear and side entrances for the
homeowners entering the property from the rear (vehicular easement {.lnd
parking rear of property).
i)Sense of Entry- As stated predously, the proposed residence presents a
classic center-hall entrance to Church Street, m~intaining the pattern ,along
this street. HOflJever, since the main vehicular access to the site is prodded
by a side and rear easement from a side alley, there are additional side' and
rear entrances for more functional connection betUJeen vehicles and
homeowners.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
10
150 Church Street
AU6 0 6 2004
7
j)Imitations- The design neither replicates orimitates any particular historical
style, but rather incorporates the best qualities of the craftsmen tradition,
f{J.')hile providing for a contemporary lidng style. More specifically, the design
addresses the opportunities of the site (street presence, circulation, solar
access, and dews), makes use of a wrying palette of materials and textures to
relay a desired organic image (stone, 'WOod, stucco, cedar shake), and
expresses the traditions of fine craftsmanship (high quality 'WOod doors and
f{J?Jindows, exposed rafter tails, authentic stucco and cedar shake siding, dry-
stacked ledge stone garden walls, exposed rafters in serreral rooms, and clear
stained vintage wood floors and trim. All this is presented in a sublime
r.nanner to provide consistency with the texture of the existing neighborhood.
3. Functional and Life-Style Requirements- The homeowner's household
consists of an actirre family offour(including 2 teenagers), with a strong
possibility of an additional senior relatirre moving into the home within the
next 5 years. The homeowners entertain often and harre frequent dsitors
l~equiring extended stays, and belierre the proposed residence is needed to
1neet their functional and family needs.
d:1apter 18.61: Tree Standards
18.61.01.0 Purpose
The atyof Ashland recognizes the importance of trees to the character and beauty of
Ashland as well as the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and welfare.
The aty has therefore determined that reasonable regulation of the removal of certain trees
is necessary and that this regulation of trees is based upon the following general guidelines:
A All tree removal and tree topping activities, unless exempted below, shall be carried out
in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
. Complies: No trees greater than 6"in diameter will be remored.
B. No person who is required to install or maintain tree protection measures pursuant this
chapter sh~ll do any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading,
excavation or demolition work on a property or site which requires a planning action
without approved tree protection measures properly installed and maintained pursuant to
this Chapter.
. Complies: A tree protection plan will be submitted with the building penn it
application as shown on the attached Landscape/Site Plan. No 'WOrk will
begin until approrred tree protection measures ha'tX been installed.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
~(
150 Church Street
AUG 0 6 2004
8
18.61.035 Exempt Tree Removal Activities
The following actiyities are exempt from the req~ement for tree removal pe~ts:
A those activities associated with the establishment or alteration of any public park under
the AsWand Parks and Recreation Commission. However, the Ashland Parks and Recreation
Department shall provide an annual plan in January to the Tree Commission outlining
proposed tree removal and topping activities, and reporting on tree removal and topping
activities that were carned out in the previous year.
· Not applicable
B. Removal of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as othetwise regulated
by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18.62.
· Not Exempt: The Project proposes a single family dwelling. The Proiect is
not regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance.
C Removal of trees in multi-family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as othetwise regulated
by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18.62).
· Not applicable: The project is a single-family dwelling.
D. Removal of trees less than 6" DBH in any zone, excluding those trees located within
the public right of way or required as conditions of approval with landscape improv1ements
for planning actions.
· Not applicable: the property is not in a multi-family residentiatzOhe.
E. Removal of trees less than 18" DBH on any public school lands, Southern Oregon
University, and other public land; but excluding Heritage trees and street trees within the
public right of way.
· Not applicable: the property is not on any public school land.
F. Removal of trees within the Wtldfire Lands area of the City, as defined on adopted
maps, for the purposes of wildfire fuel management, and in accord with the requireInents of
the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter- 18.62.
. .
· Not applicable: the property is not within the Wildlife Lands area of Ashland.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
150 Church Street
tt~
AUG 0 6 Z004
9
G. Ren(1()val of dead trees.
. l\lot applicable: no additional dead trees to be remored.
H Those activities associated with tree trimming for safety reasons, as mandated by the
Oregon Public Utilities Commission, by the City's Electric and Telecommunication Utility.
However, the Utility shall provide an annual plan to the Tree Commission outlining tree
trimming activities and reporting on tree trimming activities that were carried out in the
previous year. Tree trimming shall be done, at a minimum, byaJoumeyman Tree Trimmer,
as defined by the Utility, and will be done in conformance and to comply with OPUC
regulations.
(ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
. (})mplies: All tree trimming will adhere to Ashland city ordnances and
utilities and be preformed by a regis tered arboris t.
18.61.200 Tree Protection
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building
pemnt.
A Tree Protection Plan Required
1. A l'ree 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 pennit.
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 preselVed 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
impleffi(~nting and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
I. Location and tYIX: of tree protection measures t<? 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.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
g3
150 Church Street
AUG 0 6 2804
10
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise de~ermined by the Staff Advisor, ~ 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. O1ain 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 drip line, whichever is
greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or consetvation
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.
S. 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 itenlS,
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 Gty has inspected and approved the
installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and! or grading permit
has been issued by the Gty.
(ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
· Complies: All tree trimming will adbere to As bland city ordnances and
utilities and be prefonned by a registered arborist.
Chapter 18.62: Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.62.010 Physical and Environmental Constraints
Purpose and Intent
The purpo5e of this O1apter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of
districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural
features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of,
any natural environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are
constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant natural
features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land, natural
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
;f
150 Church Street
AU6 0 6 2004
..
11
drainage 'ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural and wildlife
habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation.
(~2808, Added, 12/02/1997) .
18.62.050 Land dassifications
The following factors shall be used to detennine the classifications of various lands and their
constraints to building and development on them:
A Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The
following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. all land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency
Managernent Agency, in maps adopted by Cbapter 15.10 of the AsWand Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps adopted by the
Council <1S 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 Cotulcil as
provided for in section 18.62.060.
5. All are:as within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps
adopted by the CoWlcil but not designated as Riparian Preservation.
B. Riparian Preservation - The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated for
Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and
Environrnental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Oay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland,
Neil and Wrights Creeks.
C. Hillside Lands - Hillside Lands are lands which are subject to damage from erosion and
slope failure, and include areas which are higWy visible from other portions of the city. The
following lands are classified as Hillside Lands:
1. All areas defined as Hillside Lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map and which
have a slope of 25 percent or greater.
D. Wtldfire Lands - Lands with potential of wildfire. The following lands are classified as
Wddfire Lands:
1. all areas defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map.
E. Seven~ 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 floodwaychannels, as defined in Chapter 15.10.
2. Alllan.ds with a slope greater than 35 percent.
F. aass~~ications Cumulative. The above classifications are cumulative in their effect and, if a
parcel of land falls Wlder two or more classifications, it shall be subject to the regulations of
each classification. Those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those portions of the land
being developed and not necessarily to the whole parcel.
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
· ''lot applicable
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
<g5"
150 Church Street
AU& 0 6 2004
12
Chapter 18.68-General Regulations
18.68.010 Fences
Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standard):
A In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half (3 ~) feet in
height.
· Complies: Proposed dry-stacked stone garden walls 'Will be limited to less
than 3 -!. 6" in height.
B. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 ~) feet in height.
· Complies: Proposed dry-stack stone garden walls 'Will be limited to less than
3'-6"in height and side yard fencing 'Will be limited to 6'-0" or less.l\lo
hedges are proposed.
C. The height of fences or walls in rear or side yard setback areas abutting a public street
shall be forty-eight (48) inches or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of any
public street except an alley.
· Not applicable
D. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's
property, except where fences are jointly constructed.
· Complies: The frames of any newly constrncted fence along the east llnd
south property lines will face the builfk,,~property. Fencing along tbe
property lines to the west are addressed in a preuous maintenance agreement
between the affected parties.
E. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (50/0) percent. In
cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the Planning
Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem The Planning
Depanment shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or on its own action.
· Complies: New fencing 'Will adhere to this requirement.
18.68.020 Vision Oearance Area
Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing the size of
the vision clearance area:
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
g6
150 Church Street
AUG 0 6 1004
13
A In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet or, at intersections
including an alley, ten (10) feet.
. f\lot applicable: Vehicular traffic from this property is prodded by existing
public alley to the west and currently used by sereral existing homes. No new
drireways are proposed. .
B. In all other districts except the Gland E-1 districts, the minimum distance shall be
fifteen (15) feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10) feet. When the angle of
intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the distance
shall be twenty- five (25) feet.
. lfot applicable: Property is in an R district.
C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or
temporary or pennanent obstructions exceeding two and one- half (2 ~) feet in height,
measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be
located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight (8)
feet above the grade.
. ('J)mplies: No new fences orwalls are proposed at the alley abutting the
S'treet.
D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance
section of this title. (Ord 2605,51, 1990)
. C;omplies: No wriance is requested.
18.68.03,0 Access
Each lot shall abut a minimum width of forty (40) feet upon a public street (other than an
alle~. This requirement may be decreased to twenty-five (25) feet on a cul-de-sac vehicle
turn-around area. Except with an approved flag partition, no lot shall abut upon a street for
a width of less than twenty-five (25) feet.
. Complies: Lot has 87.38'frontage on OJurch Street.
18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements
To pen-nit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets
of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to pennit the eventual widening of
hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured
fro.m the special base line setbac~ listed below instead of the lo! line separating the lot from
the street.
Street Setback
East Main Street, between City
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
~7
150 Church Street
~\J6 ,.6 t80'
14
limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
AsWand Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20)
feet, with the exception of the G 1- D district.
18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use
except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following
limitations:
· Complies: Apool house is proposed with this project and will comply will all
aspects of this section. The pool house will include pool equipment, sauna,
bathroom, and changing areas.
A A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district.
· Not applicable
B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided there are
no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house.
· Not applicable
C Mechanical equipment shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. Such equipment
shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front
or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that it is not visible
from adjacent public streets. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a
building permit. (Ord. 2289 S4, 1984)
· Complies: No mechanical equipmentois., to,< be, located between the ma~in
structure on the site and any street.
D. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a
side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more
than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and
separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than
fifteen (15) feet in height. (Ord. 2228, 1982; Ord. 2289 S3, 1984)
· Not applicable: Proposed accessory unit will not take admntage of this
condition.
18.68.160 Driveway Grades.
Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 200/0 for any portion of the
driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with the criteria of the Ashland Public
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
8f?
150 Church Street
lUG 06 2004
- _._-_._._-_.._--_.,--_.~_.__._-+ --+._~----~-_.~._-_..._-----~--------------
15
Works [)epartment and approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new
construction. If required by the Gty, the developer or owner shall provide certification of
driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. All vision dearance standards associated Ylith
driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to the Variance section of this
tide. (Ord. 2604 52, 1990; Ord. 2663 53, 1992)
· (JJmplies: All proposed drireway and parking grades will be less than 10%
Chapter 18.70 Solar Access
18.70.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Solar Access O1apter is to provide protection of a reasonable amount of
sunlight from shade from structures and vegetation whenever feasible to all parcels in the
Gty to preserve the economic value of solar radiation falling on structures, investments in
solar energy systems, and the options for future uses of solar energy.
18.70.030 Lot Oassifications
Affected Properties. All lots shall meet the provisions of this Section and will be classified
according to the following formulas and table: FORMUIA I:
Minimum N/S lot dimension for Formula I = 30' 0.445 + S Where: S is the decimal value of
slope, as defined in this Chapter.
FORMULA II:
Minimum N/S lot dimension for Formula II = 10' 0.445 + S Lots whose north-south lot
dimension exceeds that calculated by Formula I shall be required to meet the setback in
Section (A), below.
Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula I, but
greater than that calculated by Formula II, shall be required to meet the setback in Section
(B), below.
Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula Il"shall
be required to meet the setback in Section (q, below.
· By cakulation, Solar standard A applies to this property (actual N /S
dimension of 208.0' exceeds 75'
18.70.040 Solar Setbacks
A Setback Standard A This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater than
six (6) feet at the north property line. Buildings on lots which are classified as Standard A,
and wned for residential uses, shall be set back from the northern lot line according to the
following formula:
SSB == ]H- 6'
0.445 + S
WHERE:
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
g~
150 Church Street
lUG 0 6 2004
16
SSB = the minimum distance in feet that the tallest shadow producing point which creates
the longest shadow onto the northerly property must be set back from the northern property
line. . . .
H = the height in feet of the highest shade producing point of the structure which casts the
longest shadow beyond the northern property line.
S = the slope of the lot, as defined in this Cbapter.
· By cakulation, solar setback ~s 47.2' (H =27~0". The north property line,
hO'Werer, is frontage along ClJurch Street and the cakulated solar setb.ack
does not apply (house setback of27~0"plus street width of 4O~0" exceeds
minimum requirement of 47.2'
B. Setback Standard B. 1his setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater than
sixteen (16) feet at the north property line.
Buildings for lots which are classified as Standard B, or for any lot zoned G 1, E-1 or M-1,
or for any lot not abutting a residential zone to the north, shall be set back from the
northern lot line as set forth in the following formula:
SSB = H- 16'
0.445 + S
· Not applicable: Solar standard A applies to this property.
C. Setback Standard C TIlls setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater than
twenty-one (21) feet at the north property line.
Buildings for lots in any zone whose north! south lot dimension is less than Standard B shall
meet the setback set forth in the following formula:
SSB = H- 21'
0.445 + S
· Not applicable: Solar standard Atlpplie-s to this property.
D. Exempt Lots. Any lot with a slope of greater than thirty percent (300/0) in a northerly
direction, as defined by this Ordinance, shall be exempt from the effects of the Solar Setback
Section.
· Not applicable: Lot slope is not greater than 30% in a northerly direction.
E. Lots Mfected By Solar Envelopes. All structures on a lot affected by a solar envdope
shall comply with the height requirements of the solar envelope.
F. Exempt Structures.
1. Existing Shade Conditions. If an existing structure or topographical feature casts :a shadow
at the northern lot line at noon on December 21, that is greater than the shadow allowed by
the requirements of this Section, a structure on that lot may cast a shadow at noon on
December 21, that is not higher or wider at the northern lot line than the shadow cast by the
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
'10
150 Church Street
AUG 0 6 2004
17
existing structure or topographical feature. This Section does not apply to shade caused by
vegetation.
· '/'lot applicable
2. Actual Shadow Height. If the applicant demonstrates that the actual shadow which would
be cast by the proposed structure at noon on December 21, is no higher than that allowed
for that lot by the provisions of this Section, the structure shall be approved.
· "t{ot applicable
18.70.050 Solar Access Performance Standard
· lvot applicable
18.70.060 Variances
. lVot applicable: No wriances requested
18.70.070 Solar Access Permit for Protection from Shading by Vegetation
· l\[ot applicable
Chapter 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards
18.72.010 Purpose and Intent
The pwpose and intent of this Cl1apter is to regulate the manner in which land in the Gty is
used and developed, to reduce adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the
general public, to create a business environment that is safe and comfortable, to further
energy conservation efforts within the Gty, to enhance the environment for walking, cycling,
and mass transit use, and ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the
Gty.
18.72.040 Approval Process
A Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the
Staff Pennit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be processed as a Type I pennit at the
discretion of the Staff Advisor. 1. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more
intensive occupancy, as defined in the Citybuilding code, or any change in use which
requires a greater number of parking spaces. 2. Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or
ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less, to a building. 3. Any use
which results. in three or less dwelling units per lot, other than single- family homes on
individual lots. 4. All installations of mechanical equipment in any zone. Installation of disc
antennas shall be subjectto the requirements of Section 18.72.160. Any disc antenna for
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
q/
150 Church Street
AUG 0 6 2004
18
commercial use in a residential zone shall also be subject to a Conditional Use Pen-nit
(18.104). (Ord.2289 S5, 1984; Ord. 2457 S4, 1988).5. All installation of wireless
communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.180, iin
addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following
approval process: (See image at bottom of page) 6. Any exterior change to any structure
listed on the National Register of Historic Places." (ORD 2802, S2 1997) B. Type I
Procedure. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Type
I procedure: 1. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general
use category, e.g., from residential to commercial as defined by the zoning regulations of this
Code. 2. Any residential use which results in four dwelling units or more on a lot. 3. All new
structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet, except for developments included in
Section 18.72.040(A).
· The application for this project requires a Type I procedure due to the request
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow exceeding the Maximum Perm,itted
Floor Area (MFPA) in the Historic District.
18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone
· Not applicable: The project is not within the Detail Site Reuew Zont'.
18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards .
· Not applicable: The No wriance is requested.
18.72.110 Landscaping Standards
Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following
zones:
R-1 - 450/0 of total developed lot area
R-2 ~ 350/0 of total developed lot area
R-3 - 250/0 of total developed lot area
G1 - 150/0 of total developed lot area
G 1- D - None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the landscaping and
screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and Use Standards.
E-1 - 150/0 of total developed lot area
M 1 - 100/0 of total developed lot area
(Ord. 2825 53, 1998)
· Complies: Property is R-1-7.5 and will hare 45% of total dereloped lot area.
B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of."wayor
provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributea in those areas where
it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses, shading and wind buffering,
and aesthetic qualities.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
9r2.
150 Church Street
'~UG 0 E 200'
19
· Complies: The landscaping plans meet all of the abore requirements. See
S.bee~ L-1 for complete design.
C. Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be certified that they can
be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive, the
property owner shall replace them.
· C:omplies: All landscaping will be irrigated. A full irrigation plan will be
submitted with the final building plans.
D. Parking Lots. Seven percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped. Such
landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that all of
the landscaped areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen ground
cover or by shrubs and shaded by the trees.
· Complies: The parking area and back-up space comprises approximately 1160
SF of suiface area. This requires, at 7%, approximately landscaping totaling 81
SF. this amount of space is more than accommodated in the adjacent
lands caped areas.
E. One street tree per 30 feet of frontage shall be required on all projects.
· Complies: Two new and one existing street trees are part of the landscaping
purn and meets the abore requirement.
18.72.11.5 - Recycling Requirements
· iVot applicable: The proposed project is not a commercial or multi-family
derelopment.
18.72.120 Controlled access
A Prior to any partitioning of property located in an R-2, R-3, G1, E-l or M1 zone,
controlled access standards shall be applied and, if necessary, cross easements shall be
required .50 that access to all properties created by the partitioning can be made from one or
more pomts.
· lVot applicable: No partitioning is proposed with this application.
B. Access points shall be limited to the following:
1. Distance between driveways.
On arterial streets - 100 feet;
on collector streets - 75 feet;
on. residential streets - 50 feet.
2. Distance from intersections.
On arterial streets - 100 feet;
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
93
150 Church Street
AU6 0 E 200'
20
on collector streets - 50 feet;
on residential streets - 35 feet.
· Not applicable: No new access points are proposed.
C Vision clearance standards.
1. No obstructions greater than two and one half feet high, nor any landscaping which will
grow greater than two and one half feet high, with the exception of trees whose canopy
heights are at all times greater than eight feet, may be placed in a vision clearance area
detennined as follows:
The vision clearance area at the intersection of two streets is the triangle formed by a line
connecting points 25 feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an
intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is fonned by a line connecting points
ten feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. When the angle of intersection between
the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall be 25 feet. No structure or
ponioo thereof shall be erected within ten feet of the driveways.
· Not applicable: No intersection of streets, or streets with alleys, occur.s
adjacent to this property.
2. State of Oregon Vision Qearance Standards. The following stopping site distances shall
apply to all 5tate Highways within the City with the prescnbed speed limits. Vertical
stopping sight distance to be based on distance from three and one half feet above pavement
to a point six feet above the pavement. (Ord2544 51, 1989)
30 mph200 feet
35 mph225 feet
40 mph275 feet
45 mph325 feet
55 mph450 feet
· Not applicable: ClJurch Street is a Oty of Ashland street and is not a State
Highway.
3. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the variance
section of this title. (Ord. 2605 52, 1990)
D. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments.
1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250
vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development.
Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers.
· Not applicable: The project will not generate more than 250 vehicle trips per
day.
2. Oeating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited.
. (Ord. 2544 52, 1989; Ord 283657, 1999) .
· Not applicable: No streets are being created as part of this project.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
1'-1
150 Church Street
~U6 0 E 2004
-~--_.._--~_.~-~--_._----~--_._---~---_._-~-----_.__..---"',--------
21
18.72.140 Light and Glare Pertonnance Standards
There shall be no direct illumination of any residential wne from a lighting standard in any
other residential lot, G 1, E-1 or M-1, SO, or He lot.
· <'1Jmplies: Lighting will be shielded and located so as to limit the direct
illumination on the adjacent residential properties.
18.72.160 Landscaping Maintenance
A All landscaped areas must be maintained in a weed-free condition.
B. All landscaped areas required by this Cbapter must be maintained according to the
approved landscaping plans.
· C;omplies: Owner agrees to maintain all landscaped areas according to these
requirements.
Chapter 18.92 Off-Street Parking
18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required
Uses and standards are as follows:
A Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required.
1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for
acceSSOJ:Y residential units:
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. &.--1 space/unit.
b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger--1.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit.
d. 3- bedroom or greater units-- 2.00 spaces/unit.
· Complies: Three off-street parking spaces will be prodded.
B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required.
· Not applicable: The property is not intended orzoned for commercial
development.
C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required.
· Not applicable: The property is not intended or zoned for industrial
deU!lopment.
. . .
D. Insti.tutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following automobile
parking spaces are required.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
'1~
150 Church Street
AUG 0 ~ 2004
22
· Not applicable: The property is not intended or zoned for institutiontll or
public use deU?lopment.
E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically
defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor lbased
upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data.
· Not applicable: The property is not intended orzoned for this type of
deU?lopment.
F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces
provided by any particular use in ground swface lots shall not exceed the required number
of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 100/0. Spaces provided on-street, or
within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-stnlcture
parking, or in multi-level parking above or below swface lots, shall not apply towards the
maximum number of allowable spaces.
18.92.025 Oedit for On-street Automobile Parking
· Not applicable: No credits are requested.
18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places
· Not applicable: The property is not commercial and therefore is not 1'"equired
to prodde Disabled Person Parking.
18.92.040 Bicycle Parking
· Not applicable: The property is a detached single-family residence.
18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements
A Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the
parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18
feet, except that 500/0 of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050 and
shall have a 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled.
· Complies: Proposed parking spaces are a minimum of9x18 feet and hare a
back-up space of more than 22 feet.
B. Driveways and Tum-Arounds. Driveways and tum-arounds providing access to parking
areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a niinimum width of nine feet, and a shared
driveway seIVing two units shall have a width of 12 feet.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
Cf~
150 Church Street
AVG 0 6 2004
23
· Complies: Proposed drireway has a width of 15 feet.
2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate
aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner.
· Not applicable
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be selVed by a driveway 20 feet in
width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to
pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and pennanently marked and defined.
Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be selVed by a driveway 12 feet in width.
· Not applicable
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Gub Cuts.
a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by minor land
partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway intersections with streets by
the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. In no case shall driveways be
closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of
the driveway approach.
· Not applicable
b. Plans for property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi- family developments shall
indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of
shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements.
· Not applicable
'c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all cuID cuts and driveway
approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed
development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or sidewalk
as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division.
· Complies: The existing curb-cut on Church street will be remored.
c. Vertical Qearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum
vertical cle~rance of 13 '6" for their entire length and width.
· Nrot applicable
D. Vision aearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet in
height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the triangle
formed by a line connecting points 25 feet from the intersection of property lines. In the
case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a line
connecting pOints ten (10) feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. 'When the angle of
intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall be 25
feet. No signs, structures or vegetation or portion thereof shall be erected within ten (10)
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
97
150 Church Street
~FP 06 .
24
feet of driveways unless the same is less than two and one- half feet in height. The viision
clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this
title.
· Not applicable
E. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below,
shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be paved with
concrete, asphaltic or comparable surlacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of
the City Engineer.
· Complies: The proposed parking area and easement drireway will be pttred
with concrete or concrete parers.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-around shall have provisions made
for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto
sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property.
· Complies: A trench drain will serre to collect the sheet flow of waterfrotll the
drirreway and parking area. No water will flow onto sidewalks, public rights-of-
way or abutting properties.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surlacing constnLcted to
standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
· Not applicable
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces pennanentlyand
clearly marked.
· Not applicable
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six
feet in length. They shall be finnlyattached to the ground and so constructed as to 'withstand
nonnal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting
property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way.
· Not applicable
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masorny wall or evergreen hedge screen
of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to and
not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and
number. to provide the required screen.ing within 12 months after inst;allation. The area
between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be
adequately maintained by a pennanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be
Firtdings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
91
150 Church Street
~f"P e 6 2104
25
maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for
free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
· Not applicable
b. In all zones, except single- family zones, where parking facilities or driveways are located
adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight-
obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high
shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence
or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of
street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings shall be of
such size: and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation.
Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being
damaged by vehicles using said parking areas.
· Not applicable
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less
than 70/0 of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping required
in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distnbuted throughout the
parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood
headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, groWld cover or related material. A minimum
of one tree per seven parking spaces is required.
· QJmplies: The parking area and back-up space comprises approximately 1160
Sl~ of suiface area. This requires, at 7%, approximately landscaping totaling 81
SF. this amount of space is more than accommodated in the adjacent
lands caped are as.
8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed
into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be
directly visible from abutting residential property.
· Q)mplies: Shielded parking lights will direct light downward. All other path
lighting will be part of retaining walls and paths near the parking area and will
bt, low-mltage lighting.
Olapter 18.104: Conditional Use Permits
18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally
Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter
provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits are
to be evaluated and descnbes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use may be
established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
9q
150 Church Street
P: H r~ fl." ~~ 1),,_ "_,OJ1,.
r"~~.~'-.) " -...,
26
· This Conditional Use Penn it application is to allow the proposed project to
exceed the Maximum Pennitted Floor Area (MFPA) in the Historic.District
(Section 18.24.040K)
18.104.030 Procedure
An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the subject
property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied by the
required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the requirements
of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in <l1apter 18.108 of this Title.
18.104.040 Plan Requirements
A The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following
infonnation:
1. Vicinity map.
2. North arrow.
3. Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property.
4. Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of all lot lines.
5. Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and
schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures.
6. Location of all parking areas, parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic circulation for
the subject property.
7. Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed.
8. A topographic map of the site showing contour intetvals of five feet or less.
9. Approximate location of all existing natural features in areas which are planned to be
disturbed, including, but not limited to, all existing trees of greater than six inch dia., any
natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of rocks or
boulders.
· Complies: See attached documentation.
B. An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently with
any required application for site design approval under <l1apter 18.72. The provisions of
paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan requirements of Section
18.72.040 for site design approval.
· Not applicable
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
. .
A conditional use pennit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed
use confonns, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
/(}O
150 Church Street
fd lr.; r ~~ 'OO~t'
i"'I~ 'wi ,'-.' r,.
27
following approval criteria.
A That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in confonnance with relevant Comprehensive
plan policies that are not implemented by any Gty, State, or Federal law or program.
. Conlplies: The proposed use is in confonnance with all standards within the R-
1..7.5 zoning district.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
developolent, electricity, wban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
. Co;mplies: Adequate capacity of Qty facilities exist as declared in section
18.72.050 D. of the Site Design and Use section of these findings. See Site Plan
for more infonnation.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of
the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of
the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following
factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the
zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
. Complies: The floor area is compatible with the typical residences in this
ne:ighborhood. Refer to findings under Chapter 18.20.04OH in these findings.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle,
and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
. Q'mplies: The existing street is approximately 4O'-0"wide. This derelopment
of a single family residence is an intended use on Church Street and is within
Ashland Street standards defining a ~residential neighborhood street, parallel
pa~rking one side'~ No on-street parking credits are required for this
derelopment, and therefore, no further impact on street'parking is incurred.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
. Onrrplies: The proposed residence has been designed in a style
complementary to some of the surrounding homes. From the street, the house
h(.rs a ~'craftsmen"style and is consistent in scale and bulk to the other houses
on the street. See Section 18.20.040 H of this application for a further
description of the architectural qualities of this new residence.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
. Complies: Air quality will not be impacted, except during constrnction.'
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
/0 I
150 Church Street no'
~.,UG C 6 2u"
28
· Complies: Noise, light, and glare will not be increased to any greater extent by
the addition of a single-family residence.. .
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
· Complies: The future derelopment of adjacent properties will be of like nature
in response to site conditions and use.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
18.104.060 Conditions
The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to the
following:
A Regulation and limitation of uses.
B. Special yards, spaces.
C Fences and walls.
D. Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets and sidewalks and
bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such
improvements.
E. Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress.
F. Regulation of signs.
G. Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features.
H Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase compatibility
with adjoining uses.
I. Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances.
J. Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities.
K. The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed
L. Duration of use.
M Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space.
N. Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design.
o. Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and
efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit I (; :2...
150 Church Street
t:UG r n 2004
29
SITE DtESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTI<)NII - APPROVAL STANDARDS &POLIQES
A ()RDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site
Design and Use Standards. R-1 = 450/0
. Complies: The total per7ious natural and landscaped areas equals 7,812 SF or
454% of the total lot area.
B. ~M.JLTI-FAlvfiLYRESIDENIlALDEVELOPMENf
ApproVClJ Standards: Multi-family residential development shall conform to the following
design standards:
. Not applicable: This derelopment is not a multi-family residential
dere lopment.
c. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS
11- D-1) Screening at Required Yards
II - D-1-1.) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate a
sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard.
. O>mplies: Retaining walls and landscape screening will be provided at the
pt'rimeter of the parking area on all sides except where it connects to the
ea:sement drireway.
II - D-1- 2) The screen shall grow to at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the
parking area, except for required vision clearance areas.
· Complies: The provisions of this section will be met. See attached landscape
plan.
II-D-1-3) the screen height maybe achieved bya combination of earth mounding and plant
materials.
· }lot applicable
II-D-1-4) Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining wall.
· }-lot applicable: The parking area is not elewted
II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
103
150 Church Street
AUG e 8 2004
30
Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5' landscaped strip. Where a buffer
between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip,
and will not be an additional requirement.
· Not applicable
II - 0- 3) Landscape standards
II-D-3-1) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 70/0 bf the total panking area
plus a ratio of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect.
· Not applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3-2) the tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shan be
selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage
from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians.
· Not applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3-3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2
- feet from any curb or paved area.
· Not applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3-4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and! or living ground cover to
assure 500/0 coverage within 1 year and 900/0 within 5 years.
· Complies: The landscape has been designed to meet this requirement.
II-D-3-S) Landscaped areas shall be evenlydistnbuted throughout the parking area and
parking perimeter at the required ratio.
· Complies: Landscape areas are on two sides of the proposed driwway., "__
I1-D-3-6) That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffers strip or screening strip
abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for
those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage
and placement distribution criteria are also met, Front or exterior yard landscaping rnay not
be submitted for the interior landscaping required for interior parking stalls.
· Complies: Landscape areas are counted toward required parking lot
landscaping.
II. D.4-1) Parking areas adjacent to residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8 feet from
the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen.
· Not applicable: Off-street parking is greater than 25 feet from the main
residence.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
It; L/
150 Church Street
AUG' r, ~1 2004
31
II- D- 5) I-Iedge Screening
II- D- 5-1) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 500/0 is evergreen of the desired
screening is achieved within 2 years, 1000/0 within 4 years.
· Complies: Any landscape hedges will be designed to meet this requirement.
II-D-5-2) Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 1000/0 coverage is
achieved within 2 years.
· Complies: The requirements of this section will be me.
II - D- 6 (>ther screening
II-D-6-1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follow: Refuse container
screen, service corridor screen, light and glare screen.
· Complies: A refuse screen will be prodded @ the east side of the house @ the
basement le~l.
D. STREET ThEE 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 recolnmended list of street trees found in this section.
II-E-1) Location of Street Trees
1. Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a
designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 8 feet
~vide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the
standard established by the Department of Community Development.
· Complies: The 5 foot sidewalk will be placed at the curb per appro wi of
PLtnning Action 2002-130 Land Partition. The new street trees will therefore be
pureed beyond the new sidewalk.
II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and the 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:
<l. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street
frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted
for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches.
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.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
I oS"'
150 Church Street
,A7d ~[.; t~ H 200/t
Ih . ~.: \J'
32
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 le~ast 20
feet distant.
d. Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 ~ feet from the face of the curb except
at intersections where it shall be 5 feet fro the curb, in a curb return area.
e. Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not
interfere with those lines.
f. Trees shall not be planed within 2 feet of any pennanent hard surtace paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 feet, however,
larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the
root system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such
hard surface may be covered by permeable non-pennanent hard surtaces 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 surtaces.
· Complies: Applicant agrees to comply per landscaping plan.
h. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage froln the
development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable v.~dth and,
elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the
Staff Advisor.
· Complies: A tree protection plan will be in place during construction to
prerent any damage to the tree.
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer
with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and
species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor.
· Complies: The existing street tree will be maintained.
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
· Complies: The existing proposed street tree list approved by the stree't tree
lis t.
SECITON"nI - WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDEUNES &
POUQES
· Complies: The app.licant agrees to select droug.ht tolerant plans. Also, the.
proposed development will include sustainable building practices including
an irrigation plan that minimizes water usage.
Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit
/ /)~
150 Church Street
AUG n H201~lt Ill'S f';
\
IJiP . ..,
,
:~)
'r~
,.,-
~
"
~
t\tJG 0 6 2004
,..... fit".
\\'
'to,'
~'Il.
liNi ~J:tt t ~
f;;
"'1
flil fl~lt !
H11lIh I
!~! '~'fi
~t~ ~l
....~lli f ()
tlll~ =>.. i
!!l.l~ !.
k
lli.
~~
~rr1
~
-~
'h
. <:
<.J\
q '.
10;
~c
~~
~~
~~
~V)
e::-J
~
rr;
....
"
~l.~r
~~~"'I
!!ll ~
ii-
~~ft
i~~
[!ii~
~
IfH r
f @'{I f
~~:f~
ili I
i
<<.I!I.........u.
tttt
~~l~~ f
@. @, i. i.
:Jo). irfQ Q) :::~ (I) 0" ~ () s'2 2 :i! ).~
III :::I ~[i5'~i~;i 00
fn_ S~_~a.CD @~
r~ fn~1(')1lI=~ !l1.~_a e.i
i 1:1 II ~. fn 0 (It III ::e 0 ::e cnfJ)
:::I :::I a':'Si Sill CD l~!~t!- fJ) -.
~~ - s-:i!E~~ g = :;a:::l:::is2- ~
~Q, ~CD C/'! S'2 o;tiCD::e
CD CD ~~gI8 i"i '25:!:_-:Sl!!. ~
a. ~_ ~~':~{!l~ ~ i~-"i ~ ~
!g. - :'CD~!!!.. Q,iB'la:OI
;t.1Q t:!(;J~:s"ig S Q. CD-' 0
;~ CDa- fn! :E
~!QICD"'IQ l~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~:r~8'S ~
~1lI fnCD~I(;J....CD ~~~~
III :::I () :ql 0'2 lS
ilia. ::E1:I1lI3fn ~
i"1lI ;tl:t~S~ .g~g~
~i ~[g:~SCD CD ::I ~ 'i::- rn
S__ClCDa3 a:~2-!t ~
11 a~~!g~"8 CD 0" 2" ~
.g.~::~s~~ ;o-~ :Jo
~~ S !i. CD !!1.i:i!a ~
~ CD~~rl51Q, ~~~~ G)
fn" ~l '< CD S III fn CD
: i g.j8-~CD ~l::e ~,
lQ -'::ei~
; :::I ijr i iil ~ i~ l
.
"
""'"
WILLIAM PARTITION
160 CURCH STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON
KENCAIRN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, ASLA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE B ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNIN
It
...Jt
~.
545 'A' STREET, SUITE 3, ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
PH. (541) 488-3194, FAX (541) 552-9512
I
(up) ZlS6'ZSS'ltS <>>!O"l tLL('W"'ltS ....-pII!UI@_
-1 3 :J3~J:~H~ 'sus~StS\i ~
~ iq
ddOCIVT\rs ~lIHHOlI I~:
~
OZSL6 NOD'EnIO 'aNVIHSV
~'3:tnI.LS H::>lInH::> os { in ~
H::>NHCIIStnI H~VAnId i~
({)
.
~
<(
-
-
-
c-..I
u;:.
c:;;;
CD
::I'
Cot
~ ~ ~ Inl!! ~
hi Jj i
u~ ~ ;i~h! h 3 e
2i~ ~ d~~~ I! ~ I
~I; ~
;:::5 E~iiU
~... : ~~ .
~~\) I
I I
52
IU
Z
.;
.' .. ,": .... 0"
B~ I I
I
~-~
~DO .
ClOD II
B~ I
'"
q
=~ "-
G !
e
I
I
h I!
~i
~;
..~
:c
ill~ill~
~!.1.!;=!.!!
!li=llt=
m~m~'
m~TIW
m~mk
=111=1:
'iiffi!Mffi I
Ilm~mi::" ,_i
1=111=111=[lb
1!I=liI=II~lli=-
=11 1=1 1 1=1!F1 i
llim!Mm~~m~
11=111:::111"..,111=::
!JJffi!MmWffi!Mffi:
'/;~mmm~~
I~mmm~r
Ilmmm~j
1 EiTEl I F:.
I Ilm:t:1 1 1:::i1 I
il=11EI
I I! 1=11 I=-
II=I::=IIL
1 11:::1 II:::! ,
1=111=111::
i!Mm!Mm~
~m~m~
111=i!I=!ii
llillffi~m
EITEl I 1=
111=lInl
1 III IIF
~iT~IfJ
111=111=
m~~ii
ffi!Mm~m~
rr~m~~
1=IIEIIEiIE
!I!=IIEIII=I
FIII=IIEIIE:
illTf~T&:1ff~
m=1 1 1:::1 i l=iTI
1=11 Ell EI 1 1=,
li:=!II=III=111:
Im~m!Mm~!
, ,," ,IIIEI,:=:"
II=IIEIIEIII=III=I i 1=1 1 1=1 I,"
II1Mm~m!Mm1Mm!Mm1MTIW Ie
i!Mm!Mm~m~m~~:C-
II~m~mk!m~~p'
;i1=ii:=li -"'=1'
11=111=111= '
III-::n
I !=iTEI: I;
!I EI II=!
ffiillin!Jl
lI=m~1T
~m~IT
II~m~r
111:;::111=
11="'=1
! ,~ffi~;
lillffig)i
!l~m~m~i '
Ili=III=!!i=l:
I !iW~m~m~f
I i:i1!Mm~~~:
: :~ffi~~mf
III=:I!='I'
11-11,-1;;=
ili 1'1 I
il=.::ffi=lli
111=:11=1
II-:ii-'IF
III :'1 II
11=::;=,,1'::;,
,,~~k~~m=-
il:=:~:=III=!il
11~;:lmlllmlllf
111=!I:=::1'
:ir
I=I!!=I i i
!l1-I"=-
!~T~
(Xlp) ZIS6'ZSS-ltS (.."",) ULt-Z....ltS ~
OlSL6 N()!)31IO 'O!\'V1HSV 'J:iizl.J.lUS V StS
.::
II
oil
.. i
i ~~
OZSL6 N09tnIO 'aNVlHSV
~'3:3)llS H:::>~nH:::> OS t it; ~ ~
H:>NHaIS31I H~VAnId 15~
!
-1Jd-1I~J}I\f
ddOCIVIVS ~lIHS:OlI
~ ~ ~ ~
~i ii ,j ~i
I, I, I,
a! Ii !! d a!
LI ij I! LI
I, A,
;1 a! II Itl
L.. i,
i c\..
SI ~ U~
'/ i
i
j
j
i
~ tit
ii I! II Ii
Ii I! I, Ii
ii !! ~'Ii
L,
II i! II
el I '
i
i
i i
i
II i
i
i C
i
!
[J
'~~
'I'..g.
~h.
"LIl
I
"
~
i
i
i~ t
ill ~
~
li
II
~ ~
!I ~
i
II
"'I
.
~.
<r
,
~ ..
i! ~
~
-'-I
i
':r;..
~~
CD
=>
<
"'"
----
\)
"-
z
o
~
~
W,
..I-
w'
!
~~
V)"
~~
E)
(np) tIS6"tSS"IK (.,lOA) tUt"t8rIK ~_I"
Ol:SL6 NO~3110 'O/'o.'V1HSV '.l!fiI.lll.LS V SK
~
-LJd_ll~J}lV
ddOCIVIVS ~"HHS:O"H
~r
i~
LID
~f
lltg
t j!~Q
il ~:~!
~'
~I
Ii
I
i
~
Ii
I!
I!
I
i
!
d>
ie~g
8~h
C~O:ID
.::
II
on
~
.. %
~ %~
_ ~ iii
OZ!iL6 NOD31IO 'ONVlHSV
~'3:H'aLS H:)1I0H:) O!i L .. ~ ~
~~~
illl>
H:)NHCIIStnI H~VAnld ~~~
ij Ii i III ii il.!
Ii Iii' I \l; :~II ~). I! I' I'
~ i · I cs .. I! j! I!
s, i!,i t !!i! ~!
! _ I- ~ 2 1 ~I EI
1 ~ ~ 0( , !j f'
" I 1 , 1
, I '
I' I ,
, ' 1
I
i
i
~
.
~
<(
-
~
~
c-.I
c.c.
c:.;
CD
~
~
..i
i'
Ii
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
t <
>- i
! iI
u~~
H~o:
h Q ~I i~ ~~I i
U ~
>-~ Q ! j ':i '!I I
Q~ ~Ji~ 8 U j Ih n ! j
8< 3~~ ~
c~
~i i
i r h i! uI hi ..j ~
II "
'"I Ii I' ~
U i.E b lit n I' U
2.
~
X~J ZlS6'ZSS'lK ZLLH8t'IK ~~u'PIJ!W @ .pJ-r's
OZSL6 NOD3'l10 'ONV1HSV '.L33'l1J.S V SK
J..JdJ..r~J~V
tltlOaV'lVS ~1I'3:g01I
@
@ @
(i)
II!
@
, NODffilO 'ONVlHSV
~3rnuS HJlIOHJ os t
H:::>NHGrSffiI ddOGVIVS
@
I.'
@
~
~
i~
l~
!~
('<")
('<")
~
-
c:::t
~
(.Q
Q
Cl:)
~
ct
~1'-
',--
-,
----- ~-------------~---~- --- - ----------.---
X<J Z1S6'ZSS'ltS ZLLf'Z8t'ltS lou'PUIW @ IPJlIU
OZSL6 NO~3'l10 'aNV1HSV 'B3'l1J.S v StS
1-Jd1-I~J}lV' Ii
ddOaVIVS ~1I3HOlI II
NODffiIO 'ONV'IHSV
.L3mLLS HJ~nHJ os t
tlJNtlOrStlll ddOOV1:VS
r'mIIl
: ~mn~
I
I I
I I
L_.J
~
I"
i
i"
~
('(')
~
....
c=
:e
(oCi
c:,;;
Cb
:)
<l:
t'--
-
--....
X-.l ZI567:55'1"5 ZLLH8t>'1"5 l~U'PIJ!W @ IpJqn
OZ5L6 NO~)3)10 'ONV'lHSV '~33l1.LS V 5..5
-L Jd-Lll-I J}f\f
ddOGVIVS ~1I'3:g01I
NODffiIO 'ONVIHSV .
~3trn~S H:)lInH:) OS 1
tIJNtIGIS31I ddOGV'lVS
~
:, I e I.
f
I
I '
I
I
, .'
I
@
r e
N
C'(')
~
4"
:::1
~
."
".&)
c:J
cD
2.
~
'-
"'-
(op) ~IS6-~SS-ltS (......) ~LL(-1It-ItS ....'P"llll@........
OlSL6 NO!)3110 'ONYIHSV 'J.3BJ.lL1S V StS
~
J..JdJLI~J}jV
ddOCIVIVS ~lItHIOlI
~
6ji
~ ~~
OZSL6 NODtnIO 'ONVlHSV
. ~tlffiLLS H:>1IHH:> os L in ~
H:)NHGIS'illI H~VAnId Ii
~
(
(
- - -_::: j
Ii
II
Ii
....,_..M-....
-7~~~~------------------------------------------
~
Iii
(np)lIS6-lSS'ltS (>>!O^)lUt-l8t-IK ~
0lSL6 N<Y.)3l(O 'ONYlHSV '.LlIlU1LlS v SK
-LJd-LI~J}j\f ~
ddOCIVIVS ~lItlS:OlI I!~
>< 6
~ i .
z vi
- i ~
~g~ I~~I~
_Ii IR~c~ f
~ i~. ~ ~ ~ 5 m t.
~ iH II ~ I II I
,51
j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
>-
a::
<:
::E
::E
::>
(f)
(!)
z
z
z
~
Q.
i;
9
g
Ii
i~
i II
iI
I I
; ~
~ IU'
z ~U~
~ nn
::>
(f)
z
o
()
>-
c::
<:
::E
::E
::>
(f) it ,.; ,.;,.; ,.;
iii .JuS .,;
(!) ! ~i ~
z i N
9 i I
::>; ~ ~
m ~ i ~~ I
~ ! II ~
I
~ ~
81-
. ~ II
- ~
o ~
:::! ~I I
::>h~c
m ~- ~ R
\!!. ii
U ~ '
I~ I ~
II I
OZSL6 N09tn!O 'aNV'lHSV
.L3tnllS H:JlIflH:J os { i !
tl:)NtlQIStnI tLLVAnId ~~
Q.
<:
'-
P !q
l ft.1 E I 5 fl, III
II!i!alil!ii~!illli;;1 lilil~
~~ii~~I~~~=~~;~~~ !~g~ ~~llii
i \!!\!! ~
Ai c it i~ ~ I II I~
I;; IIII !I!!III ill.lillll
~ g~S ~~aa f~~~~~~ cl~.~~~I~:
e I II I_ .. ~ ~
<( II ;i I, ~ 51-. ~ ~ hI ~ ~
~ ll13il fll!i!;;I, ! !l! illll ~
m.. oj I~'~ Ii . E~~ ' (f)
m 3~~~;~ ~~i~ ~~i~ ~ ~~j tl;~~
<:
I i
1.llilll I1111111111111 III!!
~~a~~~g~ ~~~~~i~S!!i~j~ ~!~~~
! i ~ I
1IIIIIi ill~ 111I1I1I111
~I~~,~~ :i~~ ~~~dS~3 ~j~
~
~
<(
~
fa
CoD
c.>
CD
::>
<
11I1I U~
1 ~
I I "-
~I; 1 1
111111=
I.n ~ i I
IUI: .. il
I~UH
'I,
4 "
j:, i
! II i
~ i ~ !! ..
WI;! !
!1~li;ll!
llS/l-llOS (l'lS) 't'f~ "6It-Wl (,'IS) 'Hd
OlSl6 _ '_ 't "oIlS 'mo's ,., S'IS
~
j,
uo68JO 'PUBILlS'V
l88JlS LloJnLl~
a~uap!sa~ uopelS
i
of
i
~
.
...J
'JNI SlJ31IHJCI~1' 3d\tJSON\tl C13~\tS NClI\t)N3'>l
....
~
c=
(
':&.-
c;:;;c
~
-,
~
<1-
Il)
Iii ~
w
en ...: ...: ~
:) iii iii
>- ~~ ~ N
en ...:.... w Co
w i~ ...;~~ ui~ ~ II
~ . ~~~~i1) ~CIl (,) .
.~ 6 """
w .- CD.... 8:!!: ~~
~ .c;g..-~~co :38 ....l
0 i~~ ~CIl:: ~
6 88~~8~ ~~
-' a..a..a..a..:z:U: ........
N
A
100
I
o 100
1" = 1 00
200 Feet
J~t
CITY OF
AS 1-1 LAND
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
,
/......---p....................... '\
".>~/~~// ~\
/'>/
// /
'i,\.. /(-::.-
'\ ./" I '
\,~, ________~" I
.... \ '."--...........-.... ,
I
I
"
-,','..
" <\
\ '\
'.'\ --
.l.,' -.,
,''/ ":....~"
N
A
40
I __
o
40
80 Feet
1" = 40
J;<.)
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Dan Maymar
115 Scenic Dr
Ashland, OR 97520
DEe G 2004
Decem.ber 1, 2004
Ashland Planning Commission
Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon
RE: New Residence at 150 Church
Dear I)epartmental Staff:
I have reviewed the architectural drawings and elevations for the proposed
Saladoff residence and have concluded that the new home would be an asset
to our neighborhood. The fact that the proposed residence exceeds the
maximum allowed square footage by less than 10% does not invalidate the
intent of city law, in my opinion, to keep the scale and size of this residence
within the norm of our neighborhood.
I would urge the Planning Commission to approve this application.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Public ]~earing on An Ordinance Withdrawing an Annexed from Jackson
County Fire Distirct No.5 (Ely Schiess and Krista Johnson Annexation, 3151
East Main Street)
Meeting Date: December 7, 2004
Department: Community Devipment
Contributing D(~partments: Legal
Approval: Gino Grimaldi . .
Primary Staff Contact: John McLaughlin, 552-~
2043 mac@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Maria Harris, 552-204~.,.
harrism@2ashland.or.us .
Statement::
The property at 3151 East Main Street was approved for annexation by the City Council after the
adoption of findings on April 1, 2003. That completed the land use ordinance portion of the
annexation process. The applicant submitted the required boundary description of the property,
allowing the City to pass a resolution to annex the property at the November 2, 2004 Council
meeting. Thc~ final step for the Council in the annexation process is to hold a public hearing and
adopt an ordinance withdrawing the annexed area from the jurisdiction of Jackson County Fire
District 5.
Background:
A map of the proposed annexation is attached. This step is required to withdraw this area from
the special taxing district of Jackson County Fire District No.5.
Related City Policies
Since the Council has already approved the land use ordinance portion of the annexation, it has
previously found that the applicable goals and policies of the City have been met by this request.
Council O:ptions:
After conducting the public hearing, the Council can choose to move the ordinance to second
reading, or choose not to withdraw the property from the jurisdiction of Fire District 5.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recomnlends that the Council move the ordinance to second reading.
Potential ~v.lotions:
Move the ordinance to second reading.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Vicinity Map
1
r~'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING AN ANNEXED AREA FROM
JACKSON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO.5 (El Y SCHlESS AND
KRISTA JOHNSON, 3151 EAST MAIN STREET ANNEXATION)
Recitals:
A. The owners of the property described in the attached Exhibit "A" have
consented to the annexation of this property to the City of Ashland~ The Council further
finds no electors reside in the tract to be annexed.
B. Pursuant to ORS 222.524 a public hearing was held on December 7,2004, at
7 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon, on the question of withdrawal of this property from Jackson County Fire District
No.5.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. The land described in the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to bE~ withdrawn
from Jackson County Fire District No.5 pursuant to the provisions of ORS 2~~2.111.
The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
, 2004,
, 2004.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of .
, 2004.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Approved as to form:
C~ t~~ _
Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
N
A
200
~
o 200 Feet
I
1" = 200
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code,
Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Minimum Densities in Multi-Family Zoning
Districts
Meeting Date: December 7, 2004
Department: Community Dever/lent
Contributing D(~partments: Legal
Approval: Gino Grimaldi
Primary Staff Contact: John McLaughlin, 552- @
2043 mac@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman, l\b ,.
552-2076 goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Statement::
The City Council, at their November 2,2004 meeting, held a public hearing on establishing
minimum density standards in multi-family zoning districts. The Council deliberated the merits,
and directed staff to bring back the final version of the ordinance for first reading. The Council
approved first reading on November 16, 2004.
The ordinanc:e is essentially the same as reviewed by the Council at the previous me~ting for first
reading, with a minor sentence structure change as directed by the Council regarding the first
sentence in paragraphs 18.24.040.A.l. and 18.28.040.A.l.
Background:
All background information regarding this action was presented to the Council at the previous
public hearing and is available in the Planning Department.
Related Ciity Policies
This item originated from the City's Affordable Housing Action Plan, and is supported by
numerous Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recomnlends that the Council adopt the proposed ordinance as submitted.
Potential r~otions:
Move to adopt the ordinance.
Attachments:
Minimum D1ensity Ordinance
1
ri.'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE
ORDINANCE, REGARDING MINIMUM DENSITIES IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICTS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.24.040.A. of the Ashland land Use Ordinance is modified as
follows:
"18.24.040.A. Permitted Density.
1. Base Densities. The density of the development, including the density gained
through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this
section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of
dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the
public. The minimum density shall be 800/0 of the calculated basIs density.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density.
Base den-sity for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre,
however, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall
count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the
following restrictions.
a. Minimum lot area for unit 1 shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimunn width of
50' and minimum depth of 80'.
b. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minirnum width
of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'.
c. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in
excess of 9000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and
allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimurTl width of
50' and a minimum depth of 80'.
2. Exceptions to minimum density standards. The following lots are totally or
partially exempt from the 800/0 minimum base density standard of
Subsection 1.
a. lots less than 10,000sq.ft, in existence prior to the effective elate of
this ordinance.
b. lots located within any Historic District designated within the Ashland
Municipal Code.
c. lots with existing, or proposed, conditional uses may be exernpt for
that portion of the property that is subject to the conditional use for
calculations of the minimum base density standard.
d. If a lot is occupied by a single family residence as of the effective date
of this ordinance, the single family residence may be enlarged or
reconstructed without being subject to the 80% minimum base
density standard.
e. In the event that a fire or natural hazard destroys a single family
residence, such residence may be replaced without being subject to
the 800/0 minimum base density standard.
f. Where floodplains, streams, land drainages, wetlands, and or steep
slopes exist upon the lot an exception to minimum density
requirements may be obtained to better meet the standards of
Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints.
g. A lot that is nonconforming in minimum density may not move further
out of conformance with the minimum density standard. However,
units may be added to the lot which bring the lot closer to
conformance without coming all the way into conformance provided it
is demonstrated that the minimum density will not be precluded."
SECTIOIN 2. Section 18.28.040.A. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is modified as
follows:
"18.28.040.A. Permitted Density.
1. Base Densities. The density of the development, including the density gained
through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this
section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of
d\lvelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the
public. The minimum density shall be 800/0 of the calculated base density.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density.
Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre,
however, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall
count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the
following restrictions.
a" Minimum lot area for unit 1 shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of
50' and minimum depth of 80'.
b. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width
of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'.
d. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in
excess of 9000 sq. ft. and as determined by the base density and
allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of
50' and a minimum depth of 80'.
2. Exceptions to minimum density standards. The following lots are totally or
partially exempt from the 800/0 minimum base density standard of
Subsection 1.
a. Lots less than 10,000sq.ft, in existence prior to the effective date of
this ordinance.
b. Lots located within any Historic District designated within the Ashland
Municipal Code.
c. Lots with existing, or proposed, conditional uses may be exernpt for
that portion of the property that is subject to the conditional use for
calculations of the minimum base density standard.
d. If a lot is occupied by a single family residence as of the effective date
of this ordinance, the single family residence may be enlargE~d or
reconstructed without being subject to the 800/0 minimum base'
density standard.
e. In the event that a fire or natural hazard destroys a single fanlily
residence, such residence may be replaced without being subject to
the 800/0 minimum base density standard.
f. Where floodplains, streams, land drainages, wetlands, and or steep
slopes exist upon the lot an exception to minimum density
requirements may be obtained to better meet the standards of
Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints.
g. A lot that is nonconforming in minimum density may not move further
out of conformance with the minimum density standard. However,
units may be added to the lot which bring the lot closer to
conformance without coming all the way into conformance provided it
is demonstrated that the minimum density will not be precluded."
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 16 day of November, 2004, and duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of December, 2004.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
, 2004.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Counc:il Communication
A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and for
the City of Ashland, Oregon, on November 2, 2004, and Mayoral proclamatior,. _
Meeting Date: December 7, 2004 Primary Staff Contact: Mike Franell, 488-5350A
Department: Legal franellm@ashland.or.us
Contributing Departments: City Recorder Secondary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
Approval: Gino Grimaldi 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us
Statement::
The resolution and proclamation set forth the results of the election held on November 2, 2004,
and make thle canvass a matter of record as required by the city charter.
Backgrou:nd:
Article VII, Section 6, of the City Charter requires that the canvass of the votes for all city
elections be made, and the results of the election "shall be entered in the record of the
proceedings of the council." The resolution sets forth the vote for each position, and the
proclamation sets forth the name of each person elected to office, all as required by this charter
section.
Related Clty Policies:
Per charter requirements as outlined above.
Council C.ptions:
Adoption of the resolution with the mayor making the proclamation.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recomnlends adoption of the resolution with the mayor making the proclamation.
Potential Motions:
Move to adopt the attached resolution.
AttachmE~nts:
Proposed resolution, proposed proclamation, and the canvass of the vote documents.
1
r~'
T
. RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE Of THE
ELECTION HELD IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, ON
NOVEMBER 2, 2004.
RECITALS:
A. The City Council of the City of Ashland met on the 7th day of December, 2004, at
the City of Ashland's Civic Center and proceeded to canvass the vote cast at the
electiion held in and for the City of Ashland on the 2nd day of November 2004.
B. The Council has canvassed the vote and has determined the number of votes for
the positions as follows:
CITY OF ASHLAND MAYOR
Steve Hauck 2.575
John Morris,on 7.061
Joaquin Salloma 910
Write-Ins 85
COUNCIL MEMBER - POSITION NO. 1
Don Laws 3.478
Jack Hardesty 6.718
Write-Ins 61
COUNCIL MEMBER - POSITION NO.3
Cate HartzE~1I 6.405
. . Michael Morris 4.457
Write-Ins 29
COUNCIL MEMBER - POSITION NO.5
Tom Giordc:lno 3.383
Russ Silbiger 3.661
Gary Smith 3.068
Write-Ins 61
PARK COMMISSIONER - POSITION NO.1
JoAnne Eggers 7.522
Write-Ins 126
PAGE 1 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTEG:\legal\shartene\CQUNCIL\Election 1104
Resolutlon.wpd
Jim Lewis
Write-Ins
PARK COMMISSIONER - POSITION NO.2
7.172
113
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. John Morrison is declared to be the duly elected mayor of the City of
Ashland.
SECTION 2. Jack Hardesty is declared to be the duly elected council member for
Position NO.1.
SECTION 3. Cate Hartzell is declared to be the duly elected council member for
Position No.3.
SECTION 4. Russ Silbiger is declared to be the duly elected council membe!r for
Position No.5.
SECTION 5. JoAnne Eggers is declared to be the duly elected park commissioner for
Position No.1.
SECTION 6. Jim Lewis is declared to be the duly elected park commissioner for
Position No.2.
SECTION 7. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal C~ode
~2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOI?TED this
day of December, 2004.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
, 2004.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
PAGE 2 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE G:\legal\shar1ene\COUNCIL\Election 1104
Resolutlon.wpd
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PROCLAMATION
I, AlGIn W. DeBoer, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do proclaim that at the
election held in the City of Ashland, Oregon, on the 2nd day of November, 2004, there
was submitted to the voters the question of the election of persons to various elective
offices in the City, and it is hereby declared that the following persons were elected to
the positions set forth next to their names:
City of Ashland Mayor
John Morrison
Council Member, Position #1
Jack Hardesty
Council Member, Position #3
Cate Hartzell
Council Member, Position #5
Russ Silbiger
Park Commissioner, Position #1
JoAnne Eggers
Park Commissioner, Position #2
Jim Lewis
Dated at Ashland, Oregon, this
day of December ,2004.
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
~A'
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
i _.
DISTRICT CANVASS GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEteER 2. 2004
JACKSON COUNTY. OREGON
PRINTED 11/22/04. 08:14 AM PAGE 023.025.01
CITY OF ASHLAND HA VCR I CITY OF ASHLAND CITY OF ASHLAND
ASHlAND CITY I COUNCILHEMBER. POS 1 COUNCILHEMBER. POS 3
I ASHLAND CITY ASHLAND CITY
R V T P I
E 0 U E J M I J H C H
G T R R 00 J S I AA AA M M
I E B C N C H R OA I C R TR I 0
S R AA o E S H N R A L I KD E T C R
T S L S U N TA I Q 0 o L E Z H R
E L T TT E U S U M OA S E A I
R 0 A V C 0 I A N W T L E S
E T G E K N N S V L L
5 PRECINCTS 0 S E (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON)
0002 2 Ashland 3707 3344 90.21 608 2033 199 919 1824 1766 1164
0004 4 Ashland 3578 3122 87.26 571 1764 238 768 1744 1647 1014
0007 7 Ashland 3545 3031 85.50 632 1609 232 808 1570 1572 975
0010 10 SOU 318 206 64.78 37 69 31 43 85 90 47
0013 13 Ashland 3564 3085 86.56 727 1586 210 940 1495 1330 1257
GRAND TOTALS 14712 12788 86 . 92 2575 7061 910 3478 6718 6405 4457
I certify the .votes recorded on this abstract correctly summarize the tally of votes cast at
the election indicated.
// /0J02 Jao~y
date '
DISTRICT CANVASS GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEteER 2. 2004
JACKSON COUNTY. OREGON
PRINTED 11/22/04. 08:14 AM PAGE 026.028.01
CITY OF ASHLAND CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & I
COUNCILHEMBER. POS 5 & REC COHM. POS 1 REC COMM. POS 2 ASHLAND I
ASHLAND CITY ASHLAND CITY CITY I
R V T P I
E 0 U E T G R S I
GT R R o I U I I
I E B C N C H 0 S L J E I
S R AA o E R S B G S o G J L
T S L S U N 0 I A H A G I E
E L T TT A G R I N E HW
R 0 A N E VT N R I
E T G 0 R H E S S
5 PRECINCTS 0 S E (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON) (NON)
0002 2 Ashland 3707 3344 90.21 1041 1015 655 1941 1813
0004 4 Ashland 3578 3122 87.26 753 985 700 1826 1753
0007 7 Ashland 3545 3031 85.50 730 906 751 1770 1660
0010 10 SOU 318 206 64.78 36 33 581 128 126
0013 13 Ashland 3564 3085 86.56 823 722 904 I 1857 1820
I
GRAND TOTALS 14712 12788 86.92 3383 3661 3068 I 7522 7172
I certify the votes recorded on this abstract correctly summarize the tally of v()tes cast at
the election indicated.
~~~oo,.y
(late
SUtf4ARY REPORT
RUN DATE:11/22/04 01:27 PM
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 5) . . .
REGISTERED VOTERS. TOTAL. .
BALLOTS CAST . TOTAL. . .
VOTER TURNOUT . TOTAL . . . .
VOTES PERCENT
5 100.00
14.712
12.788
CITY OF ASHLAND MAYOR ASHLANIl CITY
Vote for 1
STEVE HAUCK. .
JOHN MORRISON .
JOAQUIN SALOMA.
YUTE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
~NERAL ELECTION
NOVEteER 2. 2004
JACKSON COUNTY. OREGON
CITY OF ASHLAND
REPORT.EL45
PAGE 001
VOTES PERCENT
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COHM. POS 2 ASHLAND CITY
86.92
Vote for 1
JIM LEWIS . .
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
98.45
1.55
7.172
113
7.285
2
5.501
2.575 24.22
7.061 66.42
910 8.56
85 .80
10.631
29
2.128
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILMEteER. POS 1 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
DON LAWS. . .
JACK HARDESTY .
YUTE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
3.478
6.718
61
10.257
29
2.502
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILMEHBER. POS 3 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
CATE HARTZELL .
MICHAEL tmRIS.
YUTE.IN. . . .
Total .
Over Votes. .
Under Votes .
6.405
4.457
29
10.891
33
1.864
cm OF ASHLAND COUNCILHEteER. POS 5 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
TOM GIORDANO .
RUSS SILBlGER .
GARY SHIlH. .
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
3.383
3.661
3.068
61
10.173
34
2.581
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COtt1. POS 1 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
JOANNE.EGGERS .
WRITE. IN. . .
Total. .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
33.91
65.50
.59
58.81
40.92
.27
33.25
35.99
30.16
.60
7.522 98.35
126 1. 65
7.648
4
5.136
I certify the 'votes recorded on this abstract correctly summarize the tally of votes cast at
the election Indicated.
~~~
thy Icett, Jackson County Cleric
//- 02oJ-~t:JO~
date
PRECINCT REPORT
RUN DATE:ll/22/04 01:53 PM
0002 2 Ashland
GENERAl ELECTION
NOvasER 2. 2004
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
CITY OF ASHLAND
REPClRT.EL30
PAGE 0002-01
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL. .
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. .
VOTER TURNOUT . TOTAL . . .
VOTES PERCENT
. 3707
. . 3344
CITY OF ASHlAND MAYOR ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
STEVE HAUCK. .
JOHN KlRRISON .
JOAQUIN SALOMA.
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. . . . . . . . 608
. . . .. . 2033
. . . . . 199
. . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . 2850
. . . .. 8
. . . . . 486
CITY OF ASHlAND COUNCILHEHBER. POS 1 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
DON LAWS. . . . . . . . .
JACK HARDESTY .
WRITE. IN . . .
Total .
Over Vote~ .
Under Votes. .
919 .
. 1824
. . . .. 10
. . . . . . . 2753
... .... 9
. . . . . . . . 582
CITY OF ASHlAND COUNCILHEHBER. POS 3 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1 ·
CATE HARTZELL. . . 1766
MICHAEL MORRIS.. ...... 1164
WRITE. IN. .. .... 0
Tota 1. . . . . . . . . . 2930
Over Votes. . . . . . . . .. 12
Under Votes. . . . . . . . . . 402
CITY OF ASHlAND COUNCILHEHBER. POS 5 ASHLAND-CIn'.
Vote for 1
TOM GIORDANO .
RUSS SILBIGER .
GARY SMITH. .
WRITE. IN . . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. . . . 1041
. . . . . . 1015
. . . . . . . . 655
. . . . 6
. . . . . 2717
. . . .. 9
. . . . . . . 618
90.21
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COHH, POS 2 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
JIM LEWIS .. ....... 1813 98.85
WRITE. IN. . . . 21 1.15
T ota 1 . . . . . 1834
Over Votes . 2
Under Votes . . . 1508
21.33
71.33
6.98
.35
33.38
66 . 25
.36
60.27
39.73
38.31
37.36
24.11
.22
CITY OF ASHlAND PARKS & REC COHH, POS 1 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
JOANNE EGGERS . 1941 98.43
WRITE. IN. . . 31 1.57
Total. . . . 1972
Over Votes . ....... 1
Under Votes. . . . . . 1371
PRECINCT REPORT
RUN DATE: 11/22/04 01: 53 PM
0004 4 Ashland
GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEteER 2. 2004 .
JACKSON COONTY. OREOON
VOTES PERCENT
REGISTERED VOTERS . TOTAL. . 3578
BALLOTS CAST . TOTAL. . . . . . . . 3122
VOTER TURNOUT . TOTAL . . . . . . . 87.26
CITY OF ASHLAND MAYOR ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
STEVE HAUCK. .
JOHN f()RRISON .
JOAQUIN SALOMA.
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
aver Votes .
Under Votes.
571
. 1764
238
18
2591
5
526
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILHEtt3ER. POS 1 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
DON LAWS. . .
JACK HARDESTY .
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. . . . 768
1744
13
. 2525
7
590
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILHEteER. POS 3 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
CATE HARTZELL.
MICHAEL tOIUS.
\lUTE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. 1647
. 1014
10
. 2671
11
440
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILMEteER. POS 5 ASHLAND CITY
22.04
68.08
9.19
.69
30.42
69.07
.51
61.66
37.96
.37
Vote for 1
TOM GIORDANO 753 30.70
RUSS SILBIGER . 985 40 .15
GARY SHIni . . 700 28.54
WRITE. IN. . 15 .61
Total 2453
Over Votes . 11
Under Votes . 658
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COtfl. POS 1 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
JOANNE EGGERS. . . . . . . 1826 98.33
WRITE. IN. . . . . . . . 31 1. 67
Total . 1857
Over Votes. . . . . . . . .. 1
Under Votes. . 1264
CITY OF ASHLAND
REPORT.EL30
PAGE 0004.01
VOTES PERCENT
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COt+1. POS 2 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
JIM LEWIS . .
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. 1753 98.43
28 1. 57
1781
o
. 1341
PRECINCT REPORT
RUN DATE:11/22/04 01:53 PM
0007 7 Ashland
GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEteER 2. 2004
JACKSON COUNTY. OREGON
CITY OF ASHlAND
REPORT-EL30
PAGE 0007.01
REGISTERED VOTERS. TOTAL. .
BALLOTS CAST . TOTAL. ....
VOTER TURNOUT . TOTAL . . .
VOTES PERCENT
. 3545
. 3031
CITY OF ASHLAND MAYOR ASHLAND CITY
85.50
VOTES PERCENT
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COHH. POS 2 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
JIM LEWIS . . 1660 97.99
WRITE-IN. . . 34 2.01
Total. . 1694
Over Votes. . . 0
Under Votes . 1337
Vote for 1
STEVE HAUCK. 632 25.22
JOHN MORRISON . 1609 64.21
JOAQUIN SALOMA. 232 9.26
WRITE. IN. 33 1.32
T ota 1 2506
Over Votes . 9
Under Votes . . 516
CITY OF ASHlAND COUNCILHEtt3ER. POS 1 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
DON LAWS. . .
JACK HARDESTY .
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. . . . . 808
. . . . . . 1570
. . . . . . .. 22
. . . . . . 2400
5
. . . . . . 626
33.67
65.42
.92
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILMEHBER, POS 3 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
CATE HARTZELL.. ...... 1572 61.48
MICHAEL MORRIS.. ...... 975 38.13
WRITE. IN. . . . . . . .. 10 .39
Total. . . . . . . 2557
Over Votes . .... 2
Under Votes. . . . . . 472
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILHEHBER, POS 5 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
T<>>1 GIORDANO .
RUSS SILBIGER .
GARY SMITH. .
WRITE. IN . . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
730
. . . . . . 906
751
23
. . . . . . . . 2410
4
617
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COHH, POS 1 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
JOANNE EGGERS .
WRITE. IN. . . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. . . . . . 1770
. . .. 30
1800
1
. 1230
30.29
37.59
31.16
.95
98.33
1.67
- - ---------_..._~---_.- ~----~~.__..._-_....__.._._-----"_.._._~-_.._--_.- --_.__._-----_......~---
PRECINCT REPORT
CENERAL ELECTION
NOvat3ER 2. 2004
JACKSON COUNlY. OREGON
RUN DATE:11/22/04 01:53 PM
0010 10 SOU
REGISTERED VOTERS. TOTAL. .
BALLOTS CAST . TOTAL. .
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . .
VOTES PERCENT
318
206
64.78
CITY OF ASHlAND MAYOR ASHlAN[) CITY
Vote for 1
STEVE HAUCK. .
JOHN MORRISON .
JOAQUIN SALOMA.
~IUTE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
37 26.43
69 49.29
31 22.14
3 . 2.14
140
o
66
CITY OF ASHlAND COUNCILHEHBEIR. POS 1 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
DON LAWS. . .
JACK HARDESTY .
WRITE-IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. .......
43
85
3
131
o
75
32.82
64.89
2.29
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILHEHBE:R. POS 3 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
CATE HARTZELL . 90 65.22
MICHAEL MORRIS. 47 34.06
WRITE. IN. 1 .72
Total 138
Over Votes . 0
Under Votes . 68
CITY OF ASHlAND COUNCILMEHBER. POS 5 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
TOM GIORDANO .
RUSS SILBIGER .
&tRy SMITH. . .
\lUTE - IN . . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
36 27.48
33 25.19
58 44.27
4 3.05
131
o
75
CITY OF ASHlAND PARKS & REC COHM, POS 1 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
JOANNE EGGERS. . . . . . . . . . 128 98.46
WRITE - IN. . . . . . . . . . .. 2 1.54
Total . 130
Over Votes . 0
Under Votes . 76
CITY OF ASHlAND
REPORT-EL30
PAGE 0010-01
VOTES PERCENT
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COt+t. POS 2 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
JIM LEWIS . . .
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
126
3
129
o
77
97.67
2.33
PRECINCT REPORT
RUN DATE:ll/22/04 01:53 PM
0013 13 Ashland
GENERAL ELECTION
NOVOOER 2. 2004
JACKSON COUNTY. OREGON
CITY OF ASHLAND
REPORT-EL30
PAGE 0013-01
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL. .
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL.
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . .
VOTES PERCENT
. 3564
3085
VOTES PERCENT
CITY OF ASHlAND PARKS & REC COMM, POS 2 ASHLAND CITY
CITY OF ASHLAND MAYOR ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
STEVE HAUCK. .
JOHN MORRISON .
JOAQUIN SALOMA. . . . .
WRITE. IN . . . .
Total .
Over Votes. . . . .
Under Votes. .
727
. . 1586
210
21
. . 2544
7
534
86.56
Vote for 1
JIM LEWIS . .
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
. 1820 98.54
27 1.46
. 1847
o
. 1238
28.58
62.34
8.25
.83
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCI LMEMBER, POS 1 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
DON lAWS. . . 940 38.40
JACK HARDESTY. . . . 1495 61. 07
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . 13.53
T ota 1. . . . . . . . . . 2448
Over Votes. . . . . . . . .. 8
Under Votes . . . . . 629
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILMEMBER, POS 3 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
CATE HARTZELL.
MICHAEL MORRIS.
WRITE. IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
1330
. . . 1257
. . .. 8
2595
8
482
CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCILMEMBER, POS 5 ASHlAND CITY
Vote for 1
TOM GIORDANO .
RUSS SILBIGER .
GARY SMITH. .
WRITE-IN. . .
Total .
Over Votes .
Under Votes .
51.25
48.44
.31
.......,,.,;...........~~.T-"'-
--._,.,..~,.,...
823 33.43
. . . . . 722 29.33
904 36.72
13 .53
. . 2462
. . . .. 10
613
CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS & REC COMM, POS 1 ASHLAND CITY
Vote for 1
JOANNE EGGERS. . . . . . . 1857 98.31
WRITE. IN. . . 32 1.69
Total . 1889
Over Votes. . 1
JACKSON COUNTY ROADS PARKS AND
PLANNING SERVICES STAFF REPORT.
APPLICANT: Jackson County
FILE: LRP2004-000 14
DATE: November 29, 2004
STAFF: Alwin Turiel, AICP
~Planning Manager
EXTERNAL Measure 37 Ballot Title
ADDENDA: OIA Mailer/Hunnicut Opinion
Sample M37 Ordinances
Public Nuisances Memo
INTERN~A.L Chapter 1 Text
ADDENDA: Fire Safety Memo
M37 Public Information
M37 Claim Form
PROPOSAL: File LRP2004-00014 Land Development Ordinance text amendments to address
changes in Oregon law related to Ballot Measure 37.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2004 Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 37, adding provisions to ORS
Chapter 197 that enable private property owners to seek compensation for enforcement of land use
regulations that reduce the value of their property. The measure also provides an alternative to
payment of compensation by allowing local governments to waive or modify a land use regulation
'that is the basis for a compensation claim. The measure became effective on December 2,2004,
on which datE~ Jackson County began receiving claims.
During the month between passage of Measure 37 and its effective date many Oregon jurisdictions
rushed to prepare and adopt "compensation ordinances" that would establish local procedures for
review and action on compensation claims by property owners. Two such ordinances, the League
of Oregon Cities model ordinance and Crook County's adopted ordinance are included in the
addenda to this report. As stated in the LOC model ordinance, the purpose of such ordinances is
to "establish a prompt, open, thorough and consistent process that enables property owners an
adequate and fair opportunity to present their claims ... (and that) preserves and protects limited
public funds."
While M37 alllows local govemments'to'establish "procedures for the processing of claims," it does
not require codification of local procedures. As a result, the Jackson County Board of
Commissionlers decided that Jackson County would initially provide a M37 claim form and general
information (attached), recognizing that legislative adjustments and case law may affect how cities
and counties implement the new law over the next few years.
Under ORS Chapter 197 a land use law that is in effect but which has not been adopted locally is
implemented directly from statute until such time as the local government includes the new law in
its regulations. The Board of Commissioners directed staff to identify options for future codification g or-\
of M37 into "Iackson County's ordinances. The result of that review was an internal draft of a M37.~ -
compensation claims ordinance that would become a new Codified Ordinances Chapter 1229 and.~ ~
a draft amendment to the 2004 Land Development Ordinance that would integrate M37waiver 8 .n
provisions into the County's land development regulations (attached). Both approaches are 0)
currently under consideration but only one, the amendments to LDO Chapters 1,8 and 9, require .~
a land use hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission to proceed. ~
~
While a new Codified Ordinances chapter would focus on the decision to compensate, the proposed g
LOO amendments assume the outcome of claims will be regulatory waivers and focuses on (,)
establishing a consistent approach that will ensure equal treatment under the terms of M37. Both g
approaches are designed to "establish a prompt, open, thorough and consistent process" that ~
"preserves and protects limited public funds." In addition, the proposed LDO amendments would ...,
..,\---
~
..
(
>.
.0 c
"0'
CI)
~
o
Jackson County Planning Staff Report
File LRP 2004-00014 (M37)
2
ensure land use permits granted by Jackson County are land use decisions subject to appeal to
LUBA. The amendments would simultaneously confer private property development rights based
on the date of acquisition by the current owner. This approach should eliminate or substantially
reduce the risk of valid compensation claims being brought against the County.
Media notice of the December 9,2004 Planning Commission public hearing was published in the
Mail Tribune on November 14, 2004 in accordance with ORS 215.223. This report and all addenda
were available seven days prior to the Planning Commission's hearing and were also mailed to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development, together with the hearing notice, on December
2, 2004.
II. ~easure 37 Implementation Issues
At this time there are more "unknowns" than "knowns" about how M37 applies to local and state land
use regulations. Like every other city and county in the state, Jackson County is exploring multiple
interpretations of the measure. A few examples of the scope of possible interpretations of the
measure's effects are summarized below.
M37 defines "land use regulation" to include:
"(a) Any statute regulating the use of land or any interest therein;
(b) Administrative rules and goals of the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
and
(c) Local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances,
and transportation ordinances.
"Exempt land use regulations" are land use regulations that:
"(a) Restricts or prohibits activities commonly and historically recognized as public nuisances
under common law;
(b) Restricts or prohibits activities for the protection of public health and safety, such as fire
and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous wastE~ regulations,
and pollution control regulations;
(c) Is required in order to comply with federal law;
(d) Restricts,'c:or-~prohibits the use of property for the purpose of selling pornography or
performing nude dancing; or
(e) Was enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the ownE~r or a family
member of the owner."
The definitions cited above are relevant both to compensation claims as well as decisions to grant
waivers. For example, a city or county might broadly construe health and safety and nuisance laws
to include most if not all of their land development standards, while another jurisdiction might
narrowly limit "exempt land use regulations" to only those that are undeniably health and safety
based (e.g., floodplain and wildfire safety standards). Such differing points of view could create a
basis for waivers in one jurisdiction that were not necessary in another. The amendments proposed
to Chapter 1 address this issue by suggesting a relatively narrow group of regulations that would be
applicable to all development in Jackson County regardless of date of acquisition. Another
alternative might be to declare that only "uses" are subject to the regulations in effect on the date
of acquisition (Le., the use tables in chapters 4 and 6) and all standards of the 2004 LDO otherwise
remain in effect. .
It appears "use" as a term for purposes of M37 may be narrowly or broadly construled. Narrowly
construed, it would be limited to "uses" permitted in specific zoning districts, leaving all development
standards intact. A broad definition of the term "use" would lead to including all standards (including
density) that are not within the category of "health and safety" regulations.
...'3- -
Jackson County Planning Staff Report
File LRP 2004-00014 (M37)
3
The issue of: what "use" means in the context of M37 raises another question regarding land
divisions. Dividing land and using it may be two different things. Multnomah County has suggested
that while the! measure defines local land division ordinances as land use regulations, they are not
for purposes of M37 to the extent that they implement ORS Chapter 92. That statute regulates how
property is crE~ated and conveyed rather than how it can be used. As a result, Multnomah County
concluded M37 claims based on a land division argument might be invalid.
Alternatively, if land division is something that can be allowed through a density waiver because the
local government chooses to define density as a "use" or "use standard", the term "property" may
have a contl9xtual meaning that would affect how land so divided was used in the future. The
language reads in the singular and refers to property as it exists at the time a claim is filed. This
sugg.ests that M37 provisions would not extend to parcels or lots resulting from a further division of
the property, even if under the same ownership, because dividing land modifies the parcel's date
of creation. It's possible that the date the divided property is created becomes when the current
"owner" "acquired" the property. In other words, as soon as it's divided it becomes a nonconforming
parcel or lot if it doesn't comply with land use laws in effect at that moment because that's when the
owner "acquired" it. Similarly, the ability to use the property is also then brought under current laws.
Most countiE~s appear to agree that once a use allowed under a M37 waiver is transferred it
becomes a nonconforming use (or parcel?). The city of Eugene however took a different approach
in its compensation ordinance, which states;
"(5) A decision by the city council to remove or modify a land use regulation shall be
personal to the claimant(s) and shall automatically become invalid and void upon the transfer
of any ownership interest in the subject property by the claimant to anyone. Following the
voidi ng of the decision because of a transfer, any use of the property must be consistent
with all regulations in effect at the time of transfer, or thereafter amended. Should a
development or use not be consistent with such regulations, then the use may be declared
a public nuisance and abated as provided in chapter 6 of this code".
"Enforce" is also a term that has yet to be clearly defined, which has significant impacts on how M37
will be implemented. If, for example, "enforce" means a development permit must have been denied
before a claiim can be made (as Washington County contends), a much smaller group of property
owners would be able to file claims. If, on the other hand, "enforce" means the local government
has simply 19nacted regulations that miaht prevent a use previously allowed on private land if a
permit was sought (as asserted by Douglas County), a much larger group of potential claimants
would result.
The relationship between state and local law is problematic under M37. For example, if the local
government chooses to waive a local regulation based on state law, ORS Chapter 197 seems to
indicate the state law then reverts to being directly enforceable. The first question is "by whom?"
It is not clear whether such lawful waivers granted by a local government could provide the basis
for an enforcement action by DLCD under ORS 197.319-350 if the local government chooses not
to enforce the state law, or whether M37 provides protection from such actions by the State against
the local government.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT/LEGAL FINDINGS
M37 appears to give local governments a clear option to grant compensation, remove or modify any
offending land use regulations that are proved to negatively affect the value of private property. It
is also clea.r that specific land use and other regulations are exempt from the new law's local
government authority to pay compensation or grant regulatory waivers. Specifically, health & safety
and nuisance abatement laws remain undisturbed. The measure gives examples of such laws
--~.-
Jackson County Planning Staff Report
File LRP 2004-00014 (M37)
4
(building, fire codes, etc.) but does not include an exhaustive list. It is therefolr left to local
government (in the absence of either relevant case law or clarification from the legislature) to
determine what local regulations are in fact exempt from the ability to "remove or modify."
In the absence of legislative guidance, it may be appropriate to modify the LDO to address some
or all of the issues identified in this report. While M37 does not specifically anticipat1e generalized
legislative enactments by local governments, it does not preclude such policy decisions. If the
County anticipates granting use waivers to every property owner who presents a valid compensation
claim, it may be desirable to extent the "rights" created by M37 to all unincorporated property owners
in the interest of maintaining an equitable land use regulatory structure. Such a syste!m would also
ensure that all permits granted would be based on an uniform analysis of regulations in effect on the
date of acquisition combined with any "exempt" regulations of the 2004 LDO. This system would
address DLCD's concerns that local governments refrain from granting "blanket waivers" without
assessing the local development regulations that were in effect on the property when it was
acquired.
Jackson County has substantively amended and re-adopted its zoning and land division regulations
in their entirety four times. The first re-adoption was in 1982 through Ordinances #8~~-27 and #82-
33, which replaced the original 1973 zoning and land division regulations. This major revision was
part of a larger amendment package that included adoption of an updated Comprehe~nsive Plan to
comply with the Statewide Planning Goals (Ordinances #82-24,82-26,82-27,82-31,82-32,82-33,
82-37, 82-38, and Ordinances #83-6 through #83-9). Later, Ordinance 88-18 established the 1989
Land Development Ordinance and Ordinance 2000-15 established the "baseline" Land Development
Ordinance that was the beginning point for the LDO update project initiated in 199~~. Ordinance
2004-2 represents the last full update of the County's land development regulations and is arguably
the most extensive update since Ordinances 82-27 and 82-33 brought the County into compliance
with the statewide planning program in 1982. These four "benchmark" ordinances would serve as
the basis for M37 inspired revisions to the LDO.
III. CRITERIA
The Comprehensive Plan amendments made through Ordinance 2004-1 and Ordinance 2004-3 in
January 2004, which were.acknowledged by operation of statute (ORS 197.6~~5(2), do not
substantially modify any criteria applicable to legislative decisions such as the text amendments to
the LDO. It should be noted that the General Introduction Element of the acknowledged
Comprehensive Plan states: "The procedural requirements and approval criteria for Comprehensive
Plan amendments are set forth in the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance." (Page 1-5),
which further supports the fact that all approval criteria are located in the County's implementing
regulations or state law.
If the Board of Commissioners adopts Emergency Ordinance 2004-11 (2004 LOO) on December
1, 2004 the criteria of unacknowledged Section 3.8 will be in effect on December 9, 2004 when the
Planning Commission holds its public hearing on potential M37 related LOO amendments. Those
criteria and the 2000 LDO criteria are addressed below.
JACKSON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CHAPTER 277 - AME:NDMENTS
2000 LDO Chapter 277 states, in part:
1 } A legislative amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance, or the
Official Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map(s) may be initiated by the BOj~rd of County
Commissioners or the Jackson County Planning Commission.
-4-
Jackson COLln.ty Planning Staff Report
File LRP 2004-00014 (M37)
5
FINDING: These amendments were initiated by the Board of County Commissioners in November
2004 in response to passage of Ballot Measure 37 on November 2, 2004.
2) Applications for such amendments shall be filed as provided in Chapter 285. Amendments
under Chapter 277 are not subject to the application processing times set forth in ORS
215.428.
FINDING: File LRP 2004-00014 was initiated by the County and are legislative in nature, thus
exempting them from the processing time lines of GRS 215.427.
3) The ,Jackson County Planning Commission is authorized to initiate or consider amendments
to thl9 Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Ordinance, or Official Maps pursuant to
Section 277.010. After holding a public hearing on an amendment, the Jackson County
Planning Commission shall forward its recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. A Jackson County Planning Commission decision not to initiate a text
. - amendment or legislative amendment is not subject to appeal.
FINDING: File LRP 2004-00014 was initiated by the Board of Commissioners, so there was no
need for the County Planning Commission to also initiate the amendments.
4) A public hearing on the record shall be held on a proposed text or map amendment after
receipt of the favorable recommendation of the Jackson County Planning Commission or the
White City Area Planning Commission.
FINDING: It the Planning Commission makes a favorable recommendation, and Chapter 277
remains in effect, the matter will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners in early 2005.
5) Where the public interest would best be served by such action, the Jackson County Planning
Com'mission or the White City Area Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners may
hold a joint hearing on a proposed amendment. Joint hearings shall be governed by the
saml9 general rules as would otherwise apply to hearings by the bodies separately. Prior to
acce~pting testimony on the proposed amendment, the Jackson~.i,.COUflty Planning
Com'mission or the White City Area Planning Commission and Board shall determine if the
bodies will jointly or separately deliberate on the matter. When the amendment is jointly
heard and separate deliberations made, the Jackson County Planning Commission or the
White City Area Planning Commission shall recommend approval, disapproval, or
modification of the proposal.
FINDING: The initial public hearing on the proposed amendments is on December 9, 2004 before
the Jackson County Planning Commission (JCPC) in accordance with LDO Section 277.035.
Because thE~se amendments are of countywide significance, the JCPC (rather than the White City
Planning Commission) had responsibility for making a recommendation to the BOC.
6) A mc~jor or legislative revision of the Official Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map(s) or text
of tli,e Comprehensive Plan and implementation ordinances shall be considered as that
which may have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area or parcel
where a land use action is proposed; or it may involve a qualitative change of use; or a
spatial change affecting a large area or many ownerships. Such revisions may only be made
if public needs or desires change substantially, and development occurs at rates other than
that contemplated by the Plan, which makes a major map amendment necessary; or where
such an amendment will correct an error or bring the Official Comprehensive Plan and
... 6....
Jackson County Planning Staff Report
File LRP 2004-00014 (M37)
6
Zoning Map(s), Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Ordinance text into compliance,
or more into compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and related Oregon Administrative
Rules or other relevant law.
FINDING: Modifications to the County's Land Development Ordinance to address Measure 37 will
have widespread and significant impacts. The need for the proposed amendments was identified
by Board of Commissioners following passage of the measure at the November 2,3004 election.
The proposed amendments would bring the LDO text into compliance, or more into compliance, with
Measure 37, which amends ORS Chapter 197.
7) Major or legislative amendments to the text and/or Official Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map(s) or this Ordinance may be heard as often as deemed necessary by the Jackson
County Planning Commission or the White City Area Planning Commission or the Board of
County Commissioners. Such amendments are intended to be the result of special studies
or other information which can serve as the factual basis to support the change.
FINDING: As noted above, these amendments were initiated by the Board of County
Commissioners in November 2004.
8) In accordance with LDO Section 277.060 (Standards for a Major or Legislative Amendment),
Legislative amendments shall:
A) Comply with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
B) Be consistent with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and ordinances.
C) In designated Areas of Special Concern, shall also comply with the provisions of
Section 280. 110 and Subsection 277~080(4).
FINDING: The proposed amendments would bring the LDO text into compliance, or more into
compliance, with Measure 37, which amends ORS Chapter 197. The amendments clarify that
wildfire safety and emergency access regulations are potentially applicable to all development
permits issued by the County as part of the County's M37 implementation stratelgy. No other
changes are proposed to the 2004 LDO, which is in compliance with all applicable Statewide
Planning Goals, the Comprehensive Plan and related ordinances.
2004 JACKSON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2
2004 LDO Chapter 2 states, in part::
2.7.7 Legislative Hearing and Planning Commission Recommendation
A) Applicability
The following types of applications requ{re a legislative hearing:
1) Major Comprehensive Plan map amendments;
2) Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan text;
3) Amendments to the Land Development Onjinance; and
4) Any other application for legislative approval requiring a Type 4 review.
B) Description
1) The Planning Commission will conduct the first evidentiary /";,earing on the
application pursuant to the relevant procedures set forth in SE~ction 2.8.4.
-- ~....
Jackson County Planning Staff Report
File LRP 2004-00014 (M37)
7
a) A legislative hearing will be conducted for all the types of amendment
applications listed in Section 2.7. 7(A), above. Notice of the hearing
will be prepared in accordance with ORS 215.503.
b) The Planning Commission will consider the application, the Planning
Staff report and recommendation, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, and then recommend the Board of Commissioners
either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The
Planning Commission recommendation will include written findings
of fact prepared by the Planning Staff explaining the justification for
the recommendation, based on the facts set forth and relevant local
and state laws.
2) The Board of Commissioners will conduct a public hearing on the application
pursuant to the relevant procedures set forth in Section 2.8.4. Upon receipt
of a Planning Commission recommendation, the Board of Commissioners will
hold at least one public hearing before taking final action on the application.
The Board will then take final action to approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application. The Board of Commissioners may either adopt or
direct Planning Staff to modify the findings and recommendation of the
Planning Commission as part of its a~tion.
FINDING: The December 9, 2004 Planning Commission hearing is the first evidentiary public
hearing on the text amendments to the 2004 LDO proposed to address M37. The Planning
Commissionl's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for consideration
in accordance with the criteria stated above.
2004 JACKSON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CHAPTER 3
2004 LDO Chapter 3 states, in part::
3.8 TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
3.8. l' Purpose
The Board of Commissioners, in accordance with the procedures of this Section,
may amend the text of this Ordinance. The purpose is not to relieve particular
hardships, nor to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but to make
adjustments to the text of this Ordinance that are necessary in light of changed
circumstances or changes in public policy, or that are necessary to advance the
general welfare of the County.
3.8.~~ Procedures
A) Initiation
Text amendments to this Ordinance may be initiated only by the Board of
County Commissioners or the Jackson County or White City Planning
Commissions.
B) Standard Review Procedure
Applications for amendments to this Ordinance willlollow the Type 4 review
procedure set forth in Section 2.7, as identified in Table 2.7-2.
3.8..3 Approval Criteria
-1-
Jackson County Planning Staff Report
File LRP 2004-00014 (M37)
8
Recommendations and decisions on LOO text amendments will be consistent with
and adequate to implement all applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Statewide Planning Goals, and Oregon Administrative Rules. Notice ot amendments
will be provided by the County as required by ORS 197.610 and ORB 215.503.
FINDING: File LRP 2004-00014 was initiated by the Board of Commissioners and is legislative in
nature. Amendments to the LOO to address issues related to passage of Measure 37 are necessary
to advance the general welfare of the County by creating a uniform, policy baSE!d system for
implementing Measure 37. Notice of the amendments were provided as required. by ORS 197.610.
Notice in accordance with ORS 215.503 will occur prior to any final action by the Board of
Commissioners on the matter.
IV. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided in this report and its supplemental exhibits, staff recommends
the. Planning Commission recommend approval of amended fire safety and emer~~ency access
standards to the Board of Commissioners, and recommend modifications to Chaptelr 1 that would
at a minimum address the extent that Measure 37 will be taken into account in land use permitting.
A\M37 JCPC_StafCReport.wpd
-fi ....