HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-190 Findings - HainesBEFORE THE COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR )
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW )
WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR, A )
TREE REMOVAl. PERMIT AND SITE )
REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A )
NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON LAND )
IN DOWNTOWN ASHLAND LOCATED )
ALONG ASHLAND CREEK AND NORTH )
OFF NORTH MAIN STREET AND WEST )
OF WATER STREET IN THE CITY OF )
ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON )
)
)
Lloyd Haines: Applicant
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Applicant's Exhibit 1
NATURE OF THIE APPLICATION; ADDITIONAL PLANS
The subject land use applications are submitted by Applicant Lloyd Haines. The applications
are to permit the construction of a three story, mixed use, building in downtown Ashland on
property that is adjacent to Ashland Creek. The proposed development is within the C-1
Retail Commercial District and is covered by a Downtown Overlay District designation (C-l-
D). Development within the C-1-D district is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.72,
Site Design and Use Standards. Additionally, development located within the floodplain of
Ashland Creek is subject to the requirements of Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review with respect to flood plain and riparian
protection. Finally, Applicant's plans involve the removal of one tree and pruning of others.
Tree removal requires a special permit under ALUO 18.61.
The proposed building will house a restaurant, retail and office space and two, residential
apartments. The apartments are intended to be on the upper-most floor. Applicant has
engaged expert architect Dave Richardson, Architectural Design Works Inc., to undertake
architectural and[ site design for the project. Architect Richardson and his staff and
consultants have prepared a detailed site design plan and exterior elevations. Applicant's
expert landscape architect, John Galbraith, Galbraith & Associates Inc., have prepared
landscape and tree protection plans and Applicant's expert civil engineer, Greg Weston, Otak
Inc., has assessed[ the flood hazard in relation to municipal regulations and participated in the
architectural design of the project. Applicant's final plans ("the approved plans") are
included at Record p. 112 to 115, A-26, A-28, A-29 A-30, A-31, AA-16 and AA-Il7.
Page 1
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
CHRONOLOGY OF PROCEEDINGS; EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The following is a chronology of proceedings for municipal consideration of this application:
12-Dec-03 Application filed
07-Jan-04 Historic Commission review of Applicants proposal
08-Jan-04 Tree Commission review of Applicants proposal
22-Jan-04 Letter from Applicant's agent Craig Stone to Bill Molnar requesting
continuance and 30-day extension of the statutory decision making deadline
18-Feb-04 City deemed the application to be complete
04-Mar-04 Tree, Commission review continued
09-Mar-04 Planning Commission public hearing on consolidated applications fbr Physical
Constraints Review for land within a floodplain and riparian corridor, site
review and a tree removal permit
13-Apr-04 Planning Commission adopted findings supporting approval
15-Apr-04 Planning Commission findings mailed to parties
23-Apr-04 Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the consolidated applications filed by
Randall Hopkins
18-May-04 Council public heating. Hearing continued to June 1, 2004 with the public
record left open
01-Jun-04 Continued Council public hearing. Record left open for 7 days for Applicant's written
response and another 7 days for opponent's comments. Hearing continued to June 15,
2004 for Council's questions of Applicant
04-Jun-04 Letter extending the statutory decision making deadline. Extension to run up to and
through July 22, 2004
15-Jun-04 Continued Council public hearing for Council to pose questions to Applicant. City
Council by unanimous vote upheld the decision of the Planning Commission and
imposed additional conditions as herein set forth
The following evidence was before the Council:
Record Page
6-15-04 Council Communication AA- 1 -- AA-2
6-15-04 Email from Randall Hopkins, Motion to Disqualify AA-2. ][
6-15-04 Email from Randall Hopkins, regarding Councilor Don Laws AA-2.2 - AA-2.3
6-04-04 Letter' from Craig A. Stone dated June 4, 2004 extending the AA-3
statutory decision making deadline
Page 2
Findings of Fact a~d Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
6-08-04
6-15-04
6-13-04
6-11-04
6-08-04
6-01-04
5-31-04
5-31-04
6-01-04
6-01-04
5-26-04
5-25-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
Letter and attachments submitted by Craig A. Stone dated
June 8, 2004
Craig A. Stone response to Councilor Jackson questions
Revised Site Plan Sheet 101R dated June 8, 2004
Revised Floor Plan Sheet 107R dated June 8, 2004
Memorandum from Attorney John Hassen dated June 8, 2004
Otak Review Update dated June 7, 2004
Otak Map Enclosures
Letter from Lloyd Haines dated June 7, 2004
Attacl~anents submitted by Lloyd Haines
Revised Site Use Summary submitted by Dave Richardson
R. Hopkins Final Response of Opponent
Email from Colin Swales to Gino Grimaldi regarding
Large Scale Development
Email from Colin Swales to Fran Berteau
Email from Mike Franell to Council Large Scale
Development Interpretation
Email from Cate Hartzell to the Council
Letter from Colin Swales to Mike Franell
Letter from Mike Franell to Colin Swales regarding Large
Scale iDevelopment Interpretation
Memo to Mayor and Council from Councilor Jackson
Council Minutes, Draft Copy
Council Communication from John McLoughlin
Letter in rebuttal from Craig A. Stone
Supplemental Brief from Randall Hopkins
Exhibit CC-1 Save the Alder flyer
Exhibit CC-2 Applicants Architect Drawing A-101
Exhibit CC-3 Table- Overall Site Use Summary
for Shasta Building
Exhibit CC-4 Large color photo of deck area
Exhibit CC-5 Large color FEMA map and new three
stow building
Exhibit CC-6 Randall Hopkins Exhibit 34
Exhibit CC-7 Randall Hopkins Exhibit 36
Exhibit CC-8 Randall Hopkins Exhibit 35
AA-4 - AA-35
AA-4 - AA- 15
AA-16
AA-17
AA-18 - AA-19
AA-20 - AA-21
AA-22 - AA-30
AA-31 - AA-33
AA-34 - AA-35
AA-36 - AA-37
AA-38 - AA-41
AA-42--AA-43
AA-44 - AA-45
AA-45.1-AA-45.2
AA-46
AA-47
AA-48 - AA-49
AA-50
AA-55
AA-62
AA-69
AA-77
AA-96
AA-97
AA-98
- AA-54
- AA-61
- AA-68
- AA-76
- AA-95
AA-99
AA- 1 O0
AA-101
AA-102
AA-103
Page 3
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-18-04
5-18-04
5-18-04
6-01-04
6-01-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
6-01-04
5-29-04
5-13-04
5-14-04
5-18-04
5-17-04
5-17-04
5-17-04
Exhibit CC- 12
Exhibit CC- 13
Exhibit CC- 14
Elevation Plan
Exhibit CC- 15
Exhibit CC-9 Randall Hopkins Exhibit 33
Exhibit CC-10 Enlargement of page 2 of the Applicants
unsigned application
Exhibit CC-11 Foam board exhibit of proposed building
Enlargement of ODOT tree dripline
Copy of architectural drawing A-101 Site Plan
Copy of architectural drawing A-201
AA- 104
AA-105
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
AA- 10(5
AA- 107
AA-108
AA- 109
Copy of architectural drawing A- 107 Floor Plan AA- 110
CC- 16 Architectural drawing of new dining deck AA- 111
CC- 17 Sculptors drawing of proposed art work AA- 112 - AA- 115
CC-18 Enlarged photo of subject property AA-116
CC-19 Enlarged photo of subject property AA-11'7
Exhibit CC-20 Email from Mike Franell Council AA- 118 - AA- 122
to Colin Swales
Exhibit CC-21 Councilor Kate Jackson's memo to Mayor AA-123 - AA-127
and Council dated May 31, 2004
Exhibit CC-22 Architects table of cut and fill calculations AA-128 - AA-129
Exhibit CC-23 Large exhibit of new three story building AA-130
Exhibit CC-24 Basement and first floor plan AA-131
Exhibit CC-25 Signed planning application AA-132
Exhibit CC-26 Large exhibit of architects drawing A-301 AA- 13:3
Transparency- Ashland Creek Floodplain Corridor Map AA-134
Transparency - Figure 5 Floodway Schematic AA- 13:5
Transparency-Corridor Map Boundary and FEMA AA-136
Transparency- Building Cross Section AA-13'7
Fax Transmittal copy of LUBA case, BTC Partnership vs. AA-13 8 - AA-150
City of Portland
Letter from David Richardson to Bill Molnar AA-151
Letter from Randall A. Hopkins to Mayor DeBoer and Council AA-1512
Letter of transmittal from Dave Richardson to City of Ashland AA- 153 - AA- 154
Email from Colin Swales to Mike Franell regarding AA-155 - AA-160
Large Scale Development
Fax from John Galbraith to Bill Molnar revised tree inventory AA-161 - AA-162
Email in support from Marc Heller to Bill Molnar AA-163
Email from Colin Swales to Gino Grimaldi AA-164- 166
Page 4
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
5-16-04
5-14-04
5-14-04
5-12-04
5-12-04
5-18-04
5-13-04
5-18-04
5-12-04
4-23 -04
4-23 -04
4-15-04
3-12-04
3-09-04
3-09-04
3-09-04
3-05-04
2-13-04
1-09-04
1-07-04
Letter in opposition from Diane McDermott
Letter in support from Judy Howard dated May 12, 2004
Letter in support from Judy Howard dated February 26, 2004
Site Use Summary Table dated May 18, 2004
Letter in support from Michael C. Babcock
dated ]May 10,2004
Record For Planning Action 2004-002
Council Communication
Supplemental Record of Applicant
Letter from Atty. Alan D. B. Harper addressing grounds
for appeal dated 5-12-04
Letter from Atty. Lloyd M. Haines dated 5-10-04
Tidings Editorial dated 4-28-04
Letter from Arborist Tom Meyers dated 4-24-04
Letter and Packet from Landscape Architect John Galbraith
dated :5-12-04
Lines and encumbrances affecting title of property
dated .5-12-04
Revised Maps provided by Applicants representatives
Notice of Council Public Hearing and applicable
criteria mailed April 28, 2004
Memo from the Ashland Tree Commission
Written objections submitted by Randall Hopkins
Notice of Appeal submitted by Randall Hopkins
Letter of Approval and Planning Commission
Findings, Conclusions & Order dated March 9, 2004
ODOT Fax, landscape permit for new tree
Ashland Planning Commission Minutes
Staff Report & Staff Exhibit
Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice
and applicable criteria
Applicants revised drawings
Applicants Findings and Exhibits
Tree Commission Planning Application Review
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
Miscellaneous Public Comments Cover Sheet
AA-167 - AA-168
AA- 169
AA- 170
AA-171
AA- 172
AA- 174
AA- 17;5
A- 1 - A-31
A- 1 - A-4
A-5 - A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12 - A-22
A-23 - A-24
A-25 - A-31
1-3
4-5
6-63
64-69
70-78
79-82
83-91
92-106
107-109
l10-119A
120-253
254
255-257
258
Page 5
Findings of Fact ar, rd Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
3-09-04
3-09-04
3-09-04
3-08-04
3-08-04
3-08-04
3-08-04
3-08-04
3-08-04
3-08-04
3-04-04
3-04-04
3-02-04
3-O2-O4
3-01-04
3-01-04
3-01-04
3-02-04
2-26-04
1-25-04
Email from opponent Randall Hopkins to Bill Molnar
Email in opposition from Oriana Spratt to Bill Molnar
Phone message in opposition from Beth Evonuik
Letter from Arborist Tom Myers
Letter from John Galbraith Landscape Architect
Letter in opposition from Diane McDermott
Letter in opposition from Richard Benson
Letter in support from Billy Harto
Email in support from David and Patricia Sprague
to Bill Molnar
Letter in
Email in
Letter in
Letter in
Letter in
Letter an
Letter in
Letter an
Letter in
Letter in
Email in
Ashland
support from
support from
support from
support from
support from
support from
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
support from Robert Harvey 268
opposition from Oriana Spratt to Susan Yates 269-270
support from Ingrid Boldt 271
Peter Brunner and Cynthis White 272
Judith Ginsburg 273
Ken Silverman 274
Frank and Nancy Phillips 275
Michael C. Babcock 276
Christopher R. Ashenbrener 277
support from Judy Howard 278
opposition from Oriana Spratt to 279
Council
III
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA
The Council has determined that the below relevant substantive criteria constitute all of the
approval standards prerequisite to approving this Physical Constraints Review permit, Tree
Removal permit and Site Design and Use Review permit. A recitation of lhe relevant
standards and criteria in the Physical and Environmental Constraints, Tree Removal, Tree
Preservation and Protection and Site Design and Use Standards are contained in Section V
of this document. In Section V, each relevant standard or criterion (or groups of standards
and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the Council.
The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in
Section IV and the evidence enumerated in Section II.
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC))
Page 6
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
ALUO Chapter 18~62 Physical Constraints Review Permit
ALUO 18.62,040(!) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff
Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential ir'npacts to t`he
property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
That the Applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development ma,./ create and
implemented measures to rnitigat`e the potential hazards caused by the developmentv
,
That the Applicant has taken alt reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or
Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and t`he
maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands, For all land use ;actions which
could result in development of the Flood plain corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements
of Chapter 15.10.
A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section
15.t0; and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill.
The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other material
imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street
and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above
amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site,
regardless of the number of permits issued.
If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must` be
obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for
permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion o~ the lot in the
Flood plain Corridor.
5, Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill,
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain
Corridor as feasible,
B~
Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section
18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of
Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without.
any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the
probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow.
Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is
exempt from the limitations in section (A) abow.~. Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian
Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075.
Page 7
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
C~
P~
F,
S.
U~
K.
Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Ct~apter 15.10 to one foot above the
elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter t5.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official
maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then
they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear or Neil
Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on alt other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050oB; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official
maps.
All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot
above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations
exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear,
or Neil Creek; 'to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Presen,'e creeks defined in section
18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official
maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow, whichever is greater. The elevation of the
finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the structure.
To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. in the
case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall !se
Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corddor shall locate all residential structures outside
the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses
proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located on
that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps,
but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Ripadan Preservation Creek. Construction shall be
subject to the requirements in paragraph D above.
New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or
above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second stop./construction
may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished
grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of
floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corddor elevations.
All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor
land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buitdable area of a sul~cient size to
accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation
purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than
the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance.
Basements,
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the
Flood plain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential
structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood
plain Corridor lands.
Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be
limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not
including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified riparian
drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway.
Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corridor Lands and at or below the
levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter
15.10.
Page 8
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
M. Local streets and utiiity connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be
located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek
Flood plain corridor as outlined below:
Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of
development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be
permitted for that section o'f the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and
the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as
indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest
potential 'for flooding within the corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be
permitted to utilize this exception.
ALUO 18.62..075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands.
Ay
All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall
comply with the following standards.
1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070)
2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
3, Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right
angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained.
SITE REVIEW
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
ALUO Chapter 72 :Site Design and Use Standards
ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone.
A,
B.
C.
The Detail Site P, eview Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section
18.72.040(A).
Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant
to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be
reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross
square footage ,of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or
contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand
up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross squa~re footage or
combined contiguous building length, as set forth in this section shall be subject to any vadance authorized
in the Land Use Ordinance.
ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval,
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or 'will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met,
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the Council for implementation of
this Chapter.
Page 9
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development;
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property.. All improvements in the street right~oPway shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, t991: Ord 2836 $6, 1999)
ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION I1: APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES
II-A, ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Il-C, COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
II-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
IFCwla) Orientation and Scale
II-C-lb) Streetscape
II-C-lc) Landscaping
II-C-ld) Parking
I I-C-le) Designated Creek Protection
II-C-lf) Noise and Glare
II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW
II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
II-C-2b) Streetscape
IFC-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation
II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening
II-C-2e) Lighting
IFC-2f) Building Materials
It-D, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS
II-D-6. OTHER SCREENING
Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from
view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height.
All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse area.
Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses
Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not
produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets.
ii-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
II-E-l) Location for Street Trees
II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Vi-Co HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
o Height
Scale
,, Massing
· Setback
Roof Shapes
Rhythm of Openings
Platforms
Directional Expression
° Sense of Entry
Imitations
Page 10
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN ASHLAND
VI-l) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited.
VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as a broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes,
awnings and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible.
VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new development.
VI-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk.
Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited.
VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stodes in commercial,
residential, or parking areas.
VI-6)
Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, ddve-up windows, auto sales, and
tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as
Conditional Use permits, to deny new uses. Although improvements to existing facilities may be
permitted.
SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS. The following standards are adopted with this plan and
shall be used as part of the land use approval process.
VI-A) Height
VI-B) Openings
VI-C) Width
VI-D) Openings
VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms
VI-F) Vertical Rhythms
VI-G) Roof Forms
VI-H) Materials
VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters
VI-J) Other
VI-K) Exception to Standards
TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter
ALUO Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation & Protection
ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An Applicant for a Tree Removal-
Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff' Advisor may require an
arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permiL
ALUO 18.61.080(B) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the Applicant demonstrates all of the following:
The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the Applicant to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use
Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to
allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted
Page11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans
or placement of structures or alternative landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the Applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection. Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning
action or building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on
a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an Applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which
cleady depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale
and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
b. Location of the ddp 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 dudng or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of
all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in
this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall
be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the
boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel
being developed.
3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the St;:~ff Advisor for
the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping
or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles.
Page 12
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of l_aw
Ashland Planning Actio~n 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
.
The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints,
thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris,
or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection
zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
C.
Inspection. The Applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City.
IV
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Council determines the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this
matter. Where conflicts arose, the Council has resolved them as follows:
1. Property Description; Ownership: The owner of record is 88 North Main, LLC.
Applicant Haines is a member of 88 North Main, LLC. The legal description of the
subject property, according to the records of the Jackson County Assessor, is Tax Lot
9800 on map 39-1E-09BB. The shape and configuration of the property is shown on the
Assessor's Plat Map Record p. 225.
e
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations: The subject property is designated
Downtown on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. The property is within a
Retail Commercial (C-I) zoning district and subject to the City's Downtown Overlay
District (D); the overall zoning designation of the property is denoted on Ashland's
Official Zoning Map as C-1-D. The property is within Ashland's Commercial North
Main Historic: District.
o
Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with urban
public facilities and services, including municipal water, sanitary sewer service,
municipal electrical service, natural gas, and transportation facilities, which accommodate
the movement of motorized vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to and through the subject
property. Representatives of Applicant testified that they had interviewed representatives
of the Ashland Engineering Department and, according to Engineering Department
representatives, the municipal infrastructure which serves this property, is sufficient for
the proposed development and contemplated land uses. However, connectionL to sanitary
sewer and water lines within North Main Street will require a permit through the State of
Oregon for the purpose of cutting the pavement to connect the underground infrastructure
to the proposed new building. Storm water run off will be diverted directly to Ashland
Creek which runs through the subject property. According to representatives of the
Ashland Engi[neering Department, there appear to be no existing conditions that would
limit the ability to discharge storm water to the creek.
4. Nature of the Proposed Use; Applicant's Final Plans ("The Approved Plans"): The
development includes the construction of a mixed use building with an under-floor area,
Page 13
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
realignment and replacement of the existing pedestrian bridge over Ashland Creek.
While Applicant's plans were revised during the municipal review process, the final plans
-- those which were approved by the Council -- are included at Record p. 112 to 115, A-
26, A-28, A-29 A-30, A-31, AA-16 and AA-17. The following is a detailed description of
the uses proposed to occupy the subject building:
· Mixed Use Building
Underfloor. The underfloor will be used for the elevator foundation and mechanical
equipment. The underfloor will also be used to store floodwaters during significant
flood events, in accordance with the regulations of Ashland and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). By definition the underfloor of this
building is not considered habitable and therefore is not consider a "floor" under the
ordinary meaning of this term. Habitable Floor is defined in the Ashland[ Municipal
Code subsection 15.10.050(J) as follows:
"Habitable Floor means any floor usable for living purposes, which includes
working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. A :floor
used only for storage purposes is not a "habitable" floor."
Some of tlhe underfloor is below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) adopted by the City
of Ashland and below the FEMA BFE. The underfloor will be of fiow-through
construction to accommodate floodwaters (during major flood events) and minimize
potential flood damage. See, Record p. A-28, Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201 and
Record p. A-29, Building Sections Sheet A-301. Any electrical, heating, ventilation,
plumbing and mechanical equipment to be located within this area will be flood-
proofed or elevated sufficiently to prevent floodwaters from entering or accumulating
within these components.
Level 1 Lower Floor. A restaurant will be located on this floor. The restaurant will
include indoor dining, a kitchen. On this floor is a planned outdoor dining and deck
area whiclh will be accessed from a central reception area. The indoor dining area is
to be adjacent to the outdoor dining area and have views to Ashland Creek. An
outdoor reception area, accessed by a stairway from North Main Street, will be
located between the existing Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and the proposed new
building. See, Floor Plan Sheet A-107-R at Record p. AA-17. The Level 1 floor
elevation is at 1,877 feet, which is 1.50 feet above the Ashland BFE an,d 5.00 feet
above the FEMA BFE. See, Record p. A-28 (Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201) and
Record p. A-29 (Building Sections Sheet A-301). New decking will be constructed
along the east side of the proposed new building and adjacent to the existing Ashland
Creek Bm: & Grill. The existing deck cover over a portion of the Ashland Creek Bar
& Grill outdoor seating and dining area will be removed. A decorative metal
guardrail 'will be installed at the north end of the new deck on the Ashland Creek side.
Level 2 Main Floor. Space for retail shops and office suites will be located on this
floor, which has access directly from North Main Street. See, Floor Plan Sheet A-
Page 14
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
107-R Record p. AA-17. The main floor elevation is measured at 1,889 feet. The
main floor is 13.50 feet above the Ashland BFE and 17 feet above the FEMA BFE.
See, Record p. A-28 (Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201) and Record p. A-29 (Building
Sections Sheet A-301).
Level 3 Upper Floor. Two residential apartments will occupy the upper-most floor.
The apartments will be 2 bedroom units with full kitchens. See, Record p. AA-17
(Floor Plan Sheet A-107-R). The upper floor elevation is measured at 1,901.50 feet.
The upper' floor is 26.00 feet above the Ashland BFE and 29.50 feet above the FEMA
BFE. See, Record p. A-28 (Exterior Elevations Sheet A-201) and Record p. A-29
(Building Sections Sheet A-301).
Building Square Footage Breakdown: Based upon Applicant's final and approved
plans (Record p. 112 to 115, A-26, A-28, A-29 A-30, A-31, AA-16 and AA-17) the
below Table 1 is a statistical breakdown of the proposed development.
Table 1
Building/Site Square Footage Breakdown
Source: Dave Richardson, Ashland Design Works
4,201
Site Area 100%
Coverage
New Building (Including Decks) 3,501 83.35%
Landscape Coverage (Including Creek) 700~ 16.65%~
Landscaping Required 0 0%
Parking 02 0%2
New Building Enclosed Areas
[Jnderfloor 891
Lower Floor (Shell) 1,863
lvlain Floor (Shell) 3,078
Upper Floor (Finished) 3,310
Total New Building Enclosed Area 9,142
New Building Unenclosed Areas
Lower Floor 1,038
IVlain Floor 93
Upper Floor 40
Total New Building Unenclosed Areas 1,171
Page 15
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Residential Uses
Allowed Density 60/acre 5.79 units allowed
Actual number of units 2 units3
Table Notes:
Landscaped area figure does not include additional landscaping to be provided on the property located
on either side of the new bridge.
ALUO 18.32.050(A) provides that land within the "D" Downtown Overlay District is not required to provide
off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotels, motels or hostel uses.
3. Residential units will both have two bedrooms
Pedestrian Bridge: There is an existing pedestrian bridge which now pen~its people
to cross over Ashland Creek by foot in order to access the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill.
The existing bridge is proposed to be replaced and slightly realigned to meet Ashland
design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge
will be cal~ed out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be ora design to
be elevated above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE), specially at 18'77 feet, and
otherwise designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations.
See, Record p. AA-16 (Site Plan Sheet A-101-R) and the conditions attached to this
approval in Section VI.
5. Proposed Method of Heating, Cooling and Lighting: At this time, Applicant proposes
to use electricity for heating and cooling throughout the building. However, Applicant
may later determine that a combination of electric and natural gas is more beneficial for
the proposed uses. The method of heating, cooling and lighting will be finally determined
at the time construction drawings are submitted for building permits.
e
Existing Land Use (Subject Property): The site is presently developed as an outdoor
seating and dining area for the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill restaurant. The existing
restaurant has indoor as well as outdoor dining areas. That portion of the outdoor dining
area which is adjacent to the existing building, is covered by a canopy that is attached to
the existing building; this area will remain and be available for outdoor dialing for the
Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. The remainder of the existing outdoor seating and dining
area is of wood decking which is not covered by any structure and which is intended as
the site of the new building. As above mentioned, there is a wood pedestrian bridge
which crosses Ashland Creek and connects the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill to a paved
parking area located on the north side of Ashland Creek (and beneath the Lithia Way
viaduct).
0
Surrounding Area Development: Photographs of the surrounding area and existing
development are in Record p. 222 to 224, which includes a photograph key map that
shows the station points for each photo and the direction each was taken. All buildings
on the same 'block as the subject property, the proposed building and buildings across
North Main Street, all have flat roofs.
Page 16
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
ge
Characteristics of Surrounding Potential Impact Area: The physical characteristics of
the surrounding potential impact area are graphically depicted in photographs. See,
Record p. 222. through 224.
9. Floodplain Corridor Land: Floodplain Corridor Land is defined in ALU(3 18.62 as
follows:
ALUO 18.62.050(A)
Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are
classified as Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. All lanq contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council as
provided for in section 18.62.060.
3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the historical past.
All area,,; within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Ripadan Preservation in
18.62.050.B and depicted as such on maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section
18.62.060.
5. All area.,; within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps adopted by
the Council but not designated as Ripadan Preservation.
The subject site contains land that is defined as Floodplain Corridor Land because:
A portion of site is within the floodplain and floodway boundary as illustrated on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance irate Maps
(FIRM) mad Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (Floodway). ALUO Chapter 15.10
adopted the Flood Insurance Maps dated June 1, 1981 for establishing areas of special
flood hazard within incorporated Ashland. The FEMA floodplain and floodway
boundary are depicted at Record p. 113 and 114, Sheets A- 103 and 104. 'The FEMA
flood elevation for the subject property is 1,872 feet. The subject site ranges in
elevation from 1,886 feet at East Main Street to 1,863 feet at the approximate west
bank of Ashland Creek. The building, other than decks, is proposed to be sited on
land that is at an elevation of 1872 feet and higher.
Land within the floodplain corridor boundary as adopted by the Council in ALUO
Section 18.62.060 is shown at Record p. 112 Sheet A-102. The Ashland Base Flood
Elevation (BFE) for the adopted floodplain corridor is 1875.50 feet.
The flooqplain corridor map adopted by the Ashland Council July 7, 1989 (the
Official Map) depicts a floodplain boundary based on historic flood events and field
survey conducted by the City of Ashland Planning Department. The Official Map as
adopted by the Council on July 7, 1989 also includes the FEMA floodplain boundary.
See Record p. 112 (Sheet A-102) and Otak Flood Hazard Assessment Record p. 191
through 194 and AA-20 through AA-21.
Page 17
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
· The site is; adjacent to Ashland Creek and is subject to riparian preservation pursuant
to ALUO 18.62.050(B).
· The site is not within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel that is not
designated as Riparian Preservation.
10. Riparian Preservation: The proposed development is adjacent to Ashl.and Creek.
ALUO 18.62.050(B) designates land along Ashland Creek for Riparian Preservation. As
such, the subject property and project are subject to the standards of the ALUO 18.62.075
which establish development standards for Riparian Preservation lands. The standards
and criteria for Riparian Preservation in ALUO 18.62.075 are:
A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section
18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards.
1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor
Lands. (18.62.070)
2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The
crossing shall be at right angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible.
Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained.
The proposed development is subject to the standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands
as set fortlh in ALUO 18.62.070 and these have been addressed in the Findings of Fact
(Section IV) and the Conclusions of Law (Section V) hereinbelow.
Trees on the subject site which are over 6-inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) are
identified on the Tree Preservation Plan at Record p. A-30. One tree which is within
the building envelope is proposed for removal, all other trees outside of the building
envelope have been retained. This application does not involve the removal of any
trees within the Riparian Preservation area. The triple-trunk maple tree (within the
Riparian Preservation Area) will be pruned although the evidence from Applicant's
expert landscape architect is that such pruning will not constitute removal under the
ALUO.
No streets or utilities are proposed in this project which would be within the flood
plain or riparian corridor. The only form of access to be within the flood/riparian
corridor, is the pedestrian bridge and the same does not require fill or culverts within
the bounqaries of the floodplain corridor, other than the potential bridge footings to
anchor the bridge on the side of the creek opposite the proposed building.~ The only
~ There is an existing pedestrian bridge which in this application, is proposed to be realigned and reconstructed
at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet.
Page 18
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
elements of this project which are within the flood plan corridor are the pillars for the
patio area. The deck support pillars are not fill.2
The term Riparian is defined at ALUO 18.62.030(Q) as, "That area associated with a
natural water course including its wildlife and vegetation." The area on the subject
site and along Ashland Creek that contains vegetation and possibly wildlife is not
proposed for excavation or fill other than what is required for the planting of
vegetation for the enhancement of the riparian area. See, Record p. A-31.
11. Timeline for Development: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.040(H)(1)(t), Applicaxtt testified
that if the applications were approved in March 2004, project development would
proceed approximately according to the following milestones:
· June 2004: Preparation of architectural working drawings and contract ,documents;
submittal 'to city for building permits; contractor selection
· August 2004: Approval of plans and issuance of building permits
· September 2004: Start of construction
· June 2005: Construction completed
· July 2005 :: Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by City of Ashland
The dates listed above, of course, will change with reference to the date upon which these
applications are ultimately approved.
12. Tree Removal and Protection: Applicant's plans contemplate the removal of one tree
and the pruning of several others, including one on Applicant's property and others on
adjacent right-of-way of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
V
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Council reaclhes the following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions under each of
the relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the standard,
criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in
Section IV hereinabove and by the evidence enumerated in Section II:
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title
ALUO CHAPTER 62: PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRAINTS
ALUO t8.62.040(t) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff
2 In this document, die terms pillars and piers are used interchangeably and mean the same thing.
Page 19
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
Criterion
Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property
and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the development standards of "this
chapter" are the standards and criteria in ALUO Chapter 18.62, the standards which are
addressed below .as Criterion 4 through 18. The findings of fact and conclusions of law for
Criterion 4 through 18 are incorporated and adopted and these demonstrate that the
development standards of ALUO Chapter 18.62 (including the standards in the Ashland Site
Design and Use Standards) have been properly observed. The Council also con~cludes that
the potential impacts to the subject property and nearby areas include: 1) the potential to
increase flooding; and flood damage up and downstream, 2) the potential damage to the
riparian corridor and riparian vegetation and its related impacts to fish and wild]life habitat.
On these categories of potential impact, the Council concludes as follows:
Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon Record p. 191 to 221, Record p. 235 to 237 and
Otak Letter Record p. AA-20 and 21 -- testimony from Applicant's expert engineers
from Otak w this project (including removal of the existing deck) will add flood storage
volume along this portion of Ashland Creek and will, in accordance with AMC
15.10.080(B)(1), allow the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters beneath the proposed
building.3 The amount of flood storage will more than offset the volume of fill and
support pillars that will be placed in the flood hazard area. The evidence also shows that
the proposed 'building (including decks which are permitted within the flood hazard area)
will be at an elevation of 1,877 feet, an elevation that is five feet higher than the 100-year
FEMA BFE which, on this property, is at an elevation of 1,872 feet. Moreover, the
building (not including the decks) will be constructed so that no portion of it lies within
the FEMA BFE topographic contour of 1,872 feet as the same is depicted at Record p.
AA-16. The Council concludes that the flood hazard area must be viewed as both a
vertical and horizontal area within which buildings should not be built. The evidence
shows that no portion of the building will violate either the horizontal or vertical
boundaries of the flood plain corridor of Ashland Creek.
Additionally, the existing pedestrian bridge is a fixed structure that exists at an elevation
lower than the 100-year FEMA BFE (an elevation of 1,872 feet). As such, 'the existing
bridge is susceptible to flood damage and the potential for it to be transported
downstream during a major flood event. Applicant proposed and the Council has
approved a new engineered bridge that will be realigned to meet Ashland design and
floodplain standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will1 be carded
3 Flood storage means areas on the property which can be excavated to store waters during large storm events
and is sometimes used to offset fill and other things placed within a flood plain which would otherwise displace
water and increase the amount of water that flows downstream during a major flood event. While .good practice,
neither the ALUO nor Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 15, require additional flood storage, although
the same has been provided for in this project.
Page 20
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of
1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet and
otherwise designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations.
Conditions attached to this approval require the bridge to be properly engineered and
Ashland regulations will require the realignment to meet all other municipal standards.
For these reasons, the Council concludes that this project will not increase areas subject
to flooding nor increase the potential for flood damage to this property or nearby areas
both upstream and downstream.
2,
Riparian Corridor/Vegetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: As to the potential :for damage
to the riparian corridor and its vegetation, this project proposed no removal of riparian
vegetation and, in fact, proposes to enhance the riparian vegetation along the new
+building's Ashland Creek frontage. However, while no riparian vegetation is to be
removed, an existing triple-trunk maple tree within the flood plain corridor must be
severely pruned to accommodate the building. During the Council's public heating of
May 18, 2004, Applicant's expert landscape architect testified that less than 50 percent of
the tree canopy will be removed and therefore the pruning does not constitute, "removal"
under the ALUO. Applicant's expert arborist testified in writing at Record p. 262 that the
tree will survive this pruning. For these reasons, the Council concludes that this project
will not adversely impact the riparian corridor or its vegetation along Ashland Creek for
this property or nearby areas.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that
the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1 because, through the
application of the development standards of ALUO 18.62 and the Ashland Site Design and
Use Standards, the potential impacts to this property and nearby areas have been considered,
and the adverse impacts have been minimized appropriately.
Criterion 2
2. That the Applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented
measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
Conclusions of Law: During the public hearing of June 1, 2004, Opponent Hopkins testified
that the support pillars for the deck could collect debris or cause increased velocities or
volume to the north and posed the rhetorical question whether this might produce flooding
that would not otherwise occur. The Council also considered the testimony of Applicant's
expert engineer from Otak who acknowledged that debris flow does occur during major
storm events but that the velocity of the storm flows in Ashland Creek at the subject property
are slow due to water that backs up at the culvert downstream from the subject property and
this causes the water to pool at the property and overflow the creek's banks on the lower,
opposite side of the creek. As such, debris that might wash into the pillars will qo so at low
velocities that are not expected to cause damage to the pillars which, as required by the
ordinance, must be flood-proofed.
Page 21
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Opponent Hopkins testified during the public hearing of June 1, 2004 that Otak's flood
studies were based upon earlier building plans which had since been modified. The Council
concludes that to the extent earlier letters in evidence from Otak were based upon Applicant's
plans which have since changed, Otak reaffirmed its conclusions in a later letter dated June 7,
2004 at Record p. AA-20. To this letter of June 7, 2004, Otak attached copies of,Applicant's
most recent plans and these are the plans approved by the Council. There being no evidence
to the contrary from any other qualified source, the Council concludes that the evidence from
Otak as to flood corridor/hazard matters to be reliable and the Council adopts the same as
fact.
The Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law fi)r Criterion
1, and concludes that Applicant has considered the potential hazards this development might
potentially create and the same are limited to potential flood damage.
Criterion 3
.
That the Applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions.' The Staff Advisor or
Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum
permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
Conclusions of Law: The Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 1 and 2. The Council concludes that potential adverse
impacts on the environment which are connected to this project, include: 1) the potential to
increase flooding and flood damage up and downstream, 2) the potential damage to the
riparian corridor and riparian vegetation, and its related impacts to fish and wildlife habitat.
The Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for
Criterion 1 and 2 and further concludes as follows:
o
Flooding/Flood Damage: Based upon the evidence, Applicant here has. taken the
following reasonable steps which will reduce the adverse impacts upon the environment
with respect to flooding and flood damage:
Applicant has set the building (other than the permissible decks) back from Ashland
Creek such that it will not penetrate either the 1,872 foot FEMA BFE nor the 1,872
topographic contour and designed the building in such a way as to increase the flood
storage capacity in an amount that is greater than what will be taken by the support
pillars and fill.
Applicant intends to remove the existing deck which is of substandard construction
and subject to damage during flood events and intends its replacement with decking
thai is further removed from the flood channel of Ashland Creek and will be of flood
proof construction pursuant to the ALUO and AMC. This will reduce potential
impediments to channel flow.
Page 22
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
The evidence shows that Applicant carefully studied the stream flooding
characteristics of Ashland Creek and designed this project to observe all re, quirements
of the ALUO, AMC 15.10 and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards.
The existing pedestrian bridge is a fixed structure that exists at an elevation which is
beneath the 100-year FEMA BFE. As such, the existing bridge is susceptible to flood
damage and the potential for it to be transported downstream during a major flood
event. Applicant has proposed a new engineered bridge to replace the existing bridge
and the same will be slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain
standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will be cm.'fled out by
a qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877
feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 f~et and be
designed and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations.
Conditions of the approval require the bridge to be properly engineered and Ashland
regulations will ensure that the realigned location will comply will all municipal
standards.
.
Riparian Corridor/Vegetation; Fish/Wildlife Habitat: Based upon the evidence,
Applicant has taken the following reasonable steps which will reduce the adverse impacts
upon the environment with respect to the riparian corridor of Ashland Cre, ek and the
riparian vegetation therein:
Applicant does not propose to remove any riparian vegetation and, instead plans to
enhance the riparian landscape with compatible plant materials, supported by an
automatic underground irrigation system. The same will enhance fish and wildlife
habitat. See, Record p. A-31 (Planting Plan).
Applicant has taken steps to preserve the existing triple-trunk maple tree which exists
near the existing retaining wall adjacent to the riparian corridor. While the one of the
three trunks will be removed and the others pruned, the tree will provide continued
shading of the creek. Applicant's agent testified and the Council agrees that creek
shading helps control stream water temperatures and benefits fish species that occupy
the creek. The trees also provide habitat for birds which use the trees fbr perching
and nesting.
Applicant has set the new deck back further from the riparian corridor than the
existing deck, thereby providing additional space within which landscaping is
planned. Applicant's agent testified and the Council agrees that riparian landscaping
in a general way will enhance fish and wildlife habitat by providing cover which is an
important habitat component for fish and fur-bearing animals.
In its consideration of this project, the Council is required to consider, "the existing
development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by
the Land Use Ordinance." Applicant's agent asserted and the Council agrees, that this means
that it must consider existing development in the surrounding area and, for vacant or
Page 23
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
underdeveloped properties, the environmental impacts as if these lands were developed to the
maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. In this regard, the Council concludes that virtually
all privately held land (except the subject property) is now fully developed (or very nearly so)
to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO, and no further consideration of additional
development or the intensification of existing development needs to be considered in this
instance. 4
There were no other objections based upon adverse impacts upon the environment and based
upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the
application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3 because this Applicant has
taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Criterion 4
ALUO 18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of
various lands and their constraints to building and development on them.
ALUO 18.62.050(B) Riparian Preservation. The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated for
Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and E. nvironmental
Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Nell and Wrights Creei~s.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that portions of the subject property are located
within the Flood Plain Corridor of Ashland Creek. Therefore, these portions of the property
are also subject to the riparian preservation standards in ALUO 18.62.075. The specific
standards for riparian preservation are addressed hereinbelow as Criterion 18. ~Ilae Council
also concludes that Criterion 4 does not operate as an approval standard, but rather to
establish the applicability of Ashland's riparian preservation standards for any giw~n parcel.
Criterion 5
ALUO 18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. For all land use actions which
could result in development, of the Flood plain corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements
of Chapter 15.10.
A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corddor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in section
15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the matedal used for fill.
3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other matedal
imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot.
4 While there is some vacant land in the vicinity of the subject property, this land either exists as public rights-
of-way or has been set aside for public parks.
Page 24
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private street
and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e.
The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above
amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site,
regardless of the number of permits issued.
.
If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill materials must be
obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated site for
permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the Flood
plain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the Flood plain
Corridor as feasible.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
The provisions of AMC Chapter 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention RegulLations) are
building code standards and requirements which are reviewed by Ashland's Building
Official at the time building permits are sought. The Council concludes tlaat there is
nothing in AMC 15.10 that cannot be met in this project and compliance with AMC
15.10 will be assured through this land use process and Ashland's required review and
approval of the construction plans before the issuance of any building permits.. Applicant
has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that the c, onstruction
plans for this project will observe all of the standards of AMC 15.10 and the Council
concludes that these can and will be met.
Regarding #1 above, Applicant has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a
condition, that he will observe the applicable standards of the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, in compliance therewith.
Regarding #2 above and based upon Record p. 195 to 221, the concrete pillars for the
proposed building and deck are the closest part of'the project to the stream an~d floodway
channel. The pillars are located more than 10 feet from the FEMA Floodway boundary.
Concrete pillars are not fill and are permitted. Moreover, the concrete pillars will have no
"toe" and because concrete is a hardened material, it will also have no angle of repose.
Regarding #3 above and based upon Record p. AA-16 and 17 (Sheets 101-R and 107-R)
and Record p. 195 to 221, fill in the floodplain corridor associated with this project is
limited to the concrete used to form the structural support pillars for the deck. There are
no public or private streets or driveways associated with this project. There is less than
50 cubic yards of other imported material (material other than concrete or aggregate
base/paving material). The Council concludes that the amounts of fill (even including the
support pillars which are not fill) have been kept to a minimum.
Page 25
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Regarding #4 above, and based upon Record p. 195 to 221 and Otak Letter Record p.
AA-20 and 21, no additional fill is necessary beyond the 50 cubic yard amount required
in #3.
Regarding #5 above, Applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has
required as a condition, that proper engineering will be required to address drainage. The
Council further concludes that adequate drainage can and will be provided for this project
in accordance with city standards.
Regarding #6 above, and based upon Record p. 195 to 221 and Otak Letter Record p.
AA-20 and AA-21, no fill has been specified in the plans for the purpose of raising the
elevation of the site to accommodate the proposed building.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 5.
Criterion 6
B.
Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section
18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of
Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without
any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design the
probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected overflow.
Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is
exempt from the limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or bddging of streams identified as Riparian
Preservation are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075.
Conclusions of Law: The Council is aware that there is an existing pedestrian bridge that
crosses Ashland Creek on the subject property and provides pedestrian access thereto.
Applicant has proposed a new engineered bridge to replace the existing bridge and will be
slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified that
the final design of the bridge will be carded out by a qualified Oregon-registered engineer
and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood
Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet and otherwise designed and constructed to meet local, state and
federal flood regulations. Conditions of the approval require the bridge to be properly
engineered and Ashland regulations will ensure that the realigned location will comply will
all municipal standards, including Criterion 6.
Criterion 7
c)
Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above the
elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations
exist, then they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland,
Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve (:reeks defined
in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified
on the official maps.
Page 26
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that Applicant, in Section VI, agreed to
stipulate to flood proofing in accordance ALUO 18.62.070(C) Criterion 7 and the
Council has required the same as a condition. The Council finds and concludes that
compliance with Criterion 7 can be met and conditions imposed on the approval of this
application, ensures that the requirements of Criterion 7 will be properly observed.
Criterion 8
D)
All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot
above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation~ contained in
the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific
elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on
Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Ripadan Preserve
creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage
ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow,
whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city by
an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the only residential structures 'which are a
part of this application are the two apartments to be located on the upper-most floor. The
approved plans show that the apartments are at an elevation substantially higher than the
elevation contained in the maps adopted in AMC Chapter 15.10 or the elevation contained in
official maps adopted as part of ALUO 18.62.060, in full compliance with Criterion 8. The
upper-most floor elevation is measured at 1,901.50 feet. The upper-most floor is 26.00 feet
above the Ashland BFE and 29.50 feet above the FEMA BFE. See, Record p. A-28 (Exterior
Elevations Sheet A-201) and Record p. A-29 (Building Sections Sheet A-301).
Criterion 8 also requires the elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor, to be certified to
the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
structure and the same will ensure full compliance with Criterion 8. Applicant has agreed to
stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that proper flood hazard certifications
will accompany the construction plans. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the
requirements of Criterion 8.
Criterion 9
E.
To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood plain Corridor Lands. In the
case where development is permitted in the Flood plain corridor area, then development shall be limited to
that area which would have the shallowest flooding.
Discussion and Conclusions of Law: The approved plans show that the building has been
placed outside the flood plain corridor- outside the horizontal and vertical boundaries of
the FEMA BFE and Ashland's designated Flood plain corridor lands. While portions of the
deck are within the flood plain corridor, decks are expressly permitted within the corridor
Page 27
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
pursuant to ALUO 18.62.070(L) and the Council interprets this criterion to exclude decks as
structures to be placed on other than flood plain corridor lands Furthermore, development
within the flood plain corridor is subject to all other requirements in ALUO 18.,62.070 and
the same are addressed herein as Criterion 5 through 17. The Council herewith incorporates
and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 5 through 17. Based upon
the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that the
application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 9.
Criterion 10
Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood plain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside
the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood plain Corridor. For residential uses
proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in Corddor land, structures may be located on
that portion of the Flood plain corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps,
but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Ripadan Preservation Creek. Construction shall be
subject to the requirements in paragraph D above.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the proposed residential uses are all on the
uppermost floor of the proposed building and, based upon the plans at Record p. AA-16 and
AA-17, the building is located outside the flood plain corridor and 20 or more feet from the
channel of Ashland Creek which is a Riparian Preservation Creek, in compliance with
Criterion 10.
Criterion
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or
above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction
may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished
grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of
floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations.
Discussion and Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the lower floors of the
building are non-residential uses. During the proceeding, Opponent Hopkins testified that
neither the Applicant nor staff has provided a map showing the accurate Ashland Floodplain
Corridor (a limit based on actual events, rather than an hydraulic study), as required as part of
the original application. At Record p. AA-69 and AA-70 Applicant's agent testified that
Applicant's architect, Dave Richardson had worked closely with Applicant's engineers at
Otak to produce the design of this building. Mr. Richardson's testimony is at Record p. AA-
73 and AA-74 and that of Otak in the record. In summary, architect Richardson testified:
o
The Ashland Flood Corridor and FEMA Floodway are accurately depicted on the design
plans he has prepared. In plan view, the building is clearly shown to be outside both the
Ashland Flood Corridor and FEMA Floodway.
Page 28
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
.
3.
.
.
There are two 100-year flood plain maps and two flood plain elevations- FEMA's and
Ashland's- and these have been adopted by Ashland. Applicant commissioned Otak
engineers to undertake additional detailed flood analysis which verified the accuracy of
the FEMA BFE. There exists a discrepancy between the flood plain lines (both
Ashland's and FEMA's) and the respective flood plain elevations. However, the
evidence makes clear that the proposed building's first finished floor of the building is at
an elevation of 1,877, which is 1.5 feet above the Ashland flood elevation and 5 feet at or
above the FEMA BFE. See, Record p. A-28.
With respect to flood plain elevations, both are accurately represented on the: elevations
for the building and show that the building's first finished floor is at or :above both
Ashland's and FEMA' s base flood elevations. See, Record p. A-28.
Because the opposite bank of Ashland Creek is lower than the flood plain elevation,
before the flood level can rise to a level that would affect this building, it will spill out on
the other side of the creek, running through the paved parking area and down Water Street
and the same has been attested to by Otak engineers. See, Record p. 199 and 201 and
AA-20 and AA-21.
The proposed bridge will be at an elevation of 1,877 feet, which is 5 feet: above the
FEMA BFE for Ashland Creek. The bridge will be anchored to the building.
.
Mr. Richardson offered stipulations with respect to flooding and riparian enhancement
and the Council has made these conditions of the approval: 1) that applicant will enhance
the riparian area beneath both the existing and proposed bridges subject to city approval
of enhancement plans, and 2) applicant will eliminate the bridge support pier in Ashland
Creek flood corridor and instead anchor the bridge to the building deck.
The approved plans show that the proposed building and use has been elevated on support
pillars to an elevation of 1,877 feet which is five feet higher than the FEMA BFE which is the
elevation shown on the official maps adopted in ALUO 18.62.060. Moreover, the structure
complies with the requirements of the second sentence of the Criterion 11 with respect to
cantilevering.
During the proceeding, Opponent Hopkins testified that there will be walls for a large
mechanical room extending down to 1,868 feet within this floodplain. While the mechanical
room has a floor elevation of 1,868 feet, it is underground and outside of the vertical and
horizontal limits of the flood plain corridor and is, therefore, compliant With this c:dterion and
Criterion 13 which expressly permits non-habitable basements if flood proofed.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that
the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11.
Criterion '12
Page 29
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Ho
All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood plain Corridor
land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to
accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or conservation
purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger than
the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion
12 by reason of inapplicability because that the subject property is neither a new lot nor one
intended to be modified by lot line adjustment.
Criterion 13
I. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located within the
Flood plain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for residential
structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the approved plans and Record p. 195 to 221 and AA-20
to 21, the Council concludes that no habitable basement is proposed for the new building.
The approved plans contemplate a non-habitable basement and the same is described in the
findings of fact in Section IV. Applicant has agreed to stipulate, and the Council Etas required
as a condition, that flood-proofing will be done in accordance with AMC Chapter 15.10.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that
the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 13.
Criterion 14
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in Flood
plain Corddor lands.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that in Section VI, Applicant: agreed to
stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, that neither he nor his tenants will store
petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals within the designated
Flood Plain Corridor, in compliance with Criterion 14.
Criterion 15
Ko
Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter shall be
limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not
including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any identified dparian
drainage or dparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway.
Page 30
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Conclusions of Law: During the public hearing, Opponent Hopkins testified that the
application violates this approval standard because fencing is shown within portions of the
property where the same is prohibited under this standard. The Council finds that, reasonably
construed, the ordinance prohibits permanent fencing within designated areas of any riparian
preservation creek. Evidence educed during the public hearing showed that the only fencing
proposed by Applicant is temporary construction fencing, designed to protect existing trees
from damage during construction. No permanent fencing is proposed. The Council
concludes that the application does not violate this criterion by proposing only' temporary
construction fencing. Since no permanent fencing is proposed, the Council concludes that the
application does not violate, and is consistent with Criterion 15.
Criterion 16
Lo
Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood plain Corddor Lands and at or below the
levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter
15.10.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that Applicant, in Section VI, agreed to
stipulate, and the Council has required as a condition, to flood-proofing in accordance with
the standards in AMC 15.10. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is
consistent with Criterion 16.
Criterion 17
M.
Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood plain Corridor shall be
located outside of the Flood plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek
Flood plain corridor as outlined below:
Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor as part of
development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be
permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood plain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and
the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general location as
indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally described as having the shallowest
potential for flooding within the corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan shall not be
permitted to utilize this exception.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes, based upon the approved plans, that no new
local streets are proposed or required as part of this application. Moreover, all utilities
available to this property (and which will be required for the new building) are all within the
right-of-way of North Main Street, and no utility connections are required to cross the Flood
Plain Corridor, in compliance with Criterion 17.
Criterion
Page 31
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
ALUO 18.62,075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands.
All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18,62.050(B)~ shall
comply with the following standards,
1, Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands. (18.62.070)
2, Any tree over six inches d.b.h, shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
3,
Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access or utilities. The crossing shall be at right
angels to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the property is crossed by Ashland Creek
and portions of the property are subject to the Riparian Preservation standards pursuant to
relevant provisions in ALUO 18.62. The Council concludes as follows with respect to the
four standards in Criterion 18:
Regarding #1 above, the same does not operate as an independent approval standard, but
rather to establish that land subject to riparian preservation is also subject to the city's
flood plain ordinance (ALUO 18.62.070) and the same are addressed hereinabove as
Criterion 5 through 17, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of law for which are
herewith incorporated and adopted.
Regarding #2 above, the evidence shows that no trees over six inches d.b.h, are proposed
to be removed on lands designed for Riparian Preservation.
Regarding #3 above, no fill within the riparian corridor is proposed, other than the
support pillars (which are not "fill") and which are permitted by the ordinance to occur
within the floodplain. The only creek crossing is the pedestrian bridge. Applicant has
proposed a new engineered bridge to replace the existing bridge and the same will be
slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain standards. Applicant testified
that the final design of the bridge will be carried out by a qualified Oregon-registered
engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877 feet, 5 feet above the FEMA Base
Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet and otherwise designed and constructed to meet local,
state and federal flood regulations. Conditions of the approval require the bridge to be
properly engineered and Ashland regulations will ensure that the realigned location will
comply will all municipal standards. Based upon the evidence at Record p. 112 to 115, A-
26, A-28 and A-29 and Sheets 101R and 107R Record p. AA-16 and 17, the Council
concludes that the bridge location has been placed, to the greatest extent possible given
the physical limitations of this site (which relate to existing buildings and preservable
trees) at a right angle to the creek.
Regarding #4 above, Applicant's plans at Record p. 112 to 115, A-26, A-28 and A-29 and
Sheets 101-R and 107-R Record p. AA-16 and 17 show that the existing topography
within the regulated riparian area, has been retained.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
Page 32
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of A:shland, Oregon
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 18.
Criterion 19
SITE REVIEW
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards
ALUO 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone.
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section
18.72.040(A).
Bo
Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted
pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width,
shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
C.
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross
square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building
or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may
expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or
combined contiguous building length, as set forth in this section shall be subject to any vadance authorized
in the Land Use Ordinance.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this project is subject to Ashland's Detail
Site Review standards. The Council also concludes that neither this building nor, in the
aggregate, the buildings to which this building is contiguous, exceed 45,000 square feet nor a
combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Therefore, the Council concludes that this
application is consistent with Criterion 19.
Criterion 20
ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval.
The following cdteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
Conclusions of Law: The Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 1 through 52 inclusive (but not including this Criterion 20)
which, with Applicant's approved plans and the other evidence enumerated iht Section II
hereinabove, demonstrate compliance with all relevant requirements of the ALU(), including
those of the Site Review Chapter m ALUO 18.72. Therefore, the Council concludes that this
application is consistent with Criterion 20.
Page 33
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Criterion
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the Council for implementation of
this Chapter.
Conclusions of Law: The Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 23 through 52 (inclusive). The Council concludes that these
demonstrate compliance with the Site Design Standards which were adopted by the Council
to implement ALUO Chapter 18.72. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is
consistent with Criterion 21.
Criterion 22
D.
That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and ,Applicant's
approved plans, the Council concludes that adequate capacity of City facilities for water,
sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 22.
Criterion 23
CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION II
APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES
II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site Design and Use
Standards.
Zone % Landscaping
R-1-3.5 45%
R-2 35%
R-3 25%
C-1 15%
C-1-D 10%
E-1 15%
M-1 10%
These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet the needs of
other sections of the Site Review Ordinance, such as screening of parking areas, landscaping of setback areas,
and providing usable outdoor space. In general, all areas which are not used for building or parking areas are
required to be landscaped. You should also be aware that, as a condition of approval of your project, you will be
required to submit a site and species specific landscape plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor approval.
Page 34
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Conclusions of Law: The subject property is zoned C-1-D. Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.110,
there are no area landscape requirements for land in the C-1-D zone, other than for parking
areas and service stations. This project does not include off-street parking nor service
station(s). Therefore, this project is not required to observe the minimum landscaping
standards in Criterion 23. However, Applicant here has provided landscaping alo:ng Ashland
Creek which, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, is in an amount greater than 10
percent. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, tlhe Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23.
Criterion 24
I1-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following
development standards:
Il-C-la) Orientation and Scale
1)
2)
3)
Buildings shall have their pdmary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area.
entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk.
sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage.
Building
Public
Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street
to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to
the public during all business hours.
These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and
industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service uses such as service stations and tire
stores.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that Applicant's approved plans clearly
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Criterion 24.
Criterion 25
Il-C-lb) Streetscape
One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the
development fronting the street.
Conclusions of Law: The Council finds that photographs and photograph key map at Record
p. 222 to 224 shows the existence of street trees along the subject property's North Main
Street frontage. The Council concludes that no additional street trees are required to meet the
standard in Criterion 25. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent
with Criterion 25.
Page 35
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Criterion 26
II-C-lc) Landscaping
1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverag,~ occurs after
5 years.
2) Landscaping design use a vadety of Iow water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and
flowedng plant species.
3)
Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the
Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-
way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially
zoned land.
4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Regarding #1 above, Record p. A-31 shows, according to Applicant's expert landscape
architect, that proposed landscaping has been designed to supply 50 percent coverage
after one year and 90 percent coverage after 5 years.
Regarding #2 above, and based upon Record p. A-31, the Council concludes that the
proposed landscaping design has used a variety of low water use deciduous and evergreen
trees and shrubs and flowering plant species.
Regarding #3 above, the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 23, which concluded that this property is not subject to
landscaping requirements by virtue of its location within Ashland's C-1-D zoning district.
However, as also discussed in the Council's conclusions of law for Criterion 23,
Applicant here has provided proposed landscaping along Ashland Creek (and additional
landscaping that is not a part of this application, within adjacent rights-of-way owned by
the Oregon Department of Transportation). Additionally, as this property is within the
Ashland Historic District, the requirements of Criterion 26 (#3) do not apply.
Regarding fi4 above, Applicant in Section VI has agreed to stipulate, and the Council has
required as a condition, that the proposed living landscape areas will be se, rved by an
automatic underground irrigation system.
Regarding #5, the Applicant contends and the Council concludes that efforts have been
made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs of the site as possible and all but
one has been preserved. However, in order to comply with other provisions of the ALUO
and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, the removal of one tree is necessary. ALUO
18.61.080 governs the removal of trees and the same is addressed hereinbelow as
Criterion 53, the findings of fact and conclusions of law for which are herewith
incorporated and adopted.
Page 36
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 26.
Criterion 27
II-C-ld) Parking
1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and
screened from non-residential uses.
Conclusions of Law: The subject project is within the Retail Commercial (C-l) District and
within the Downtown Overlay District (C-l-D). Areas within the Downtown Overlay
District are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas except for hotel, motel
or hostel uses. As the proposed uses are neither hotel, motel or hostel uses, the Council
concludes that this criterion is not applicable. Therefore, this application is consistent with
Criterion 27 by reason of inapplicability.
Criterion 28
II-C-le) Designated Creek Protection
Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the
overall design of a given project.
2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that Applicant's approved plans demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of Criterion 28. In reaching this conclusion, the Council
also finds and concludes that the plant materials specified at Record p. A-31 are native
riparian plant varieties which have been recommended to meet this standard by .Applicant's
expert landscape architect.
Criterion 29
II-C-lf) Noise and Glare
Specific attention to glare (AMC 18.72.110) and noise (AMC 9.08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175) shall be considered
in the project design to insure compliance with these standards.
Conclusions of Law: As to glare, the Council concludes that there is nothing in the design of
this project which will produce glare at levels inconsistent with the Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC). Regarding noise, the Council finds that this property is within a small[ city block
which is entirely occupied by commercial buildings and uses. Additionally, this block is
bounded on all sides by the following streets: North Main Street, Lithia Way and Water
Page 37
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Street. While outdoor dining is contemplated in the application, there is no proposal here for
the conduct of outdoor entertainment. Based upon these findings, the Council cortcludes that
specific attention has been paid and consideration has been given to the potential for glare
and noise, pursuant to the standards in the Ashland Municipal Code and that the proposed
building and anticipated uses can and will comply. Therefore, the Council concludes that this
application is consistent with Criterion 29.
Criterion 30
II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site must be made to
comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion, e.g., if building area is to expand by
25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this application does not constitute an
"expansion" of an existing building because the proposal is for a new building. Therefore,
Criterion 30 is concluded to be inapplicable.
Criterion 31
II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the standards for
Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards:
II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
1)
Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of .35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area
Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area
for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ratio.
2) Building frontages greater than 200 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes
in the building facade.
3)
Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain al: least 20% of
the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow views into
working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are
prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented
toward loading or service areas.
4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances.
5) Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable.
6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the
rain and sun.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law for
the above Criterion 24 through 30 (inclusive) which are herewith incorporated and
adopted the Council concludes that the application is consistent with all of the
Page 38
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
requirements for Basic Site Review. The subject property is within the Detail Site Review
Zone. Moreover, the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for the below Criterion 37 through 40 (inclusive) in support of its
conclusion that the application is consistent with all of the standards and criteria for Detail
Site Review as required for land within the Detail Site Review Zone. Therefore, the Council
concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 31.
The Council also concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 above, this standard only applies to lands located outside tlae Historic
District. As this property is within the Historic District, this standard is inappliicable.
Regarding #2 above and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the proposed building
does not have building frontage greater than 200 feet in length. Therefore, the application
is consistent with #2 by reason of inapplicability.
Regarding #3 and based on Applicant's approved plans, the only wall within 30 feet of
any street is the front elevation wall, and it contains more than 20 percent in display areas,
windows, or doorways and these allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian
entrances or display areas, consistent with #3.
Regarding/14 and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the building has incorporated
lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish and these emphasize the building
entrances. Materials are a combination of brick, smooth and dappled stucco and glass.
Regarding #5, this project represents an infill of an existing vacant parcel (improved now
only with decking). The existing parcel is adjacent to the public sidewalk on ]North Main
Street. While this project does not constitute infill within an existing parking lot, the
standard in #5 is expressed only in permissive not mandatory terms and, therefore, is not
a required approval standard.
Regarding #6 and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the proposed building
incorporates a canopy along most of the building's front elevation which covers a portion
of the adjacent sidewalk and will protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Additionally,
Applicant's approved plans show that there are building overhangs above some of the
planned deck surfaces and these provide additional protection for pedestrians.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with all the requirements of Criterion 31.
Criterion 32
II-C-2b) Streetscape
Page 39
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
2)
Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit
masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above.
A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for
pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is proposed for a
site, at least 25% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk.
Conclusions of Law: Regarding #1 above, the Council concludes that the planned decks (as
shown in Applicant's approved plans) will be "people" areas. While Applicant and his
architect have not yet determined the type of material to be used for the decking surface, it
will be a masonry material of some type, consistent with the requirements of #1. As to #2,
the only public sidewalk that exists near this property is the sidewalk on North Main Street,
to which the proposed building abuts. Therefore, the proposed building does not setback
more than 20 feet. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 32.
Criterion 33
II-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation
1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100
feet in average width or depth.
2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas
or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings.
3)
Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. On-
site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees,
residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal
circulation of the building.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that off-street parking is not required within the
C-1-D zone and no parking or parking lot is proposed. The Council also concludes that this
project does not equal one acre or more. As to the lighting and linking of' pedestrian
walkways, Applicant's approved plans show complete pedestrian linkages, including a
linkage across Ashland Creek by way of the proposed (and existing) bride. The new bridge
will be lit and the same is evidenced by Applicant's approved plans. Therefore, the Council
concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 33.
II-C-2d) Buffering and Screening
l)
2)
Criterion 34
Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those
buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed
buildings.
Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned
land.
Page 40
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
The subject property is adjacent to only one existing land use, the existing 'building to
which the proposed building will very nearly abut and which is occupied by tire Ashland
Bar & Grill, a restaurant which the Council deems to be compatible with the restaurant
and other uses to occupy the proposed building. As to the residential apartments to
occupy the uppermost floor of this building, the Council finds and concludes that these
are not incompatible with the commercial uses to be housed in this building and the
building next door. Upper floor residential uses in Ashland's downtown are desirable and
permitted. The Council also finds that the building materials used in the construction of
the new building (and its upper floor residential apartments) are an appropriate means to
buffer and screen the residential uses from nearby commercial uses. Therefore, the
Council concludes that no landscape buffer or screening is needed because there are no
incompatible uses on adjacent land.
Regarding #2, this application does not require parking nor is any parking proposed.
Therefore, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with #2 by reason of
inapplicability.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 34.
Criterion 35
II-C-2e) Lighting
1) Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or
placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon Applicant's approved plans, no free-standing lighting is
proposed. The only lighting will be that which is attached to the building, the pedestrian
bridge or the canopies and which is for the purpose of illuminating entrances and outdoor
pedestrian/dining areas. In no instance, is lighting to be at a height of more thLan 14 feet.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes that
the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 35.
II-C-2f) Building Materials
Criterion 36
1) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masom¥, for at least
15% of the exterior wall area.
2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited.
Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.
Page 41
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Regarding # 1 and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the propose, d building
incorporates architectural features of the types listed which cover more than 15; percent of
the exterior wall area.
Regarding #2 above, and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the colors to 'be used are
neither bright nor neon, nor does this building incorporate glass as a majority of the
building's skin.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 36.
Criterion 37
II-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: All development fronting on public or pdvate streets shall be required to plant street
trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in
this section.
II-E-l) Location for Street Trees
1)
Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip
in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 9 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root
barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community Development.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon Applicant's plans at Record p. 112 to 115, A-26, A-28
and A-29 and Sheets 101R and 107R Record p. AA-16 and 17, the sidewalk on North Main
Street is greater than 9 feet in width. Moreover, street trees have already been planted along
this block of North Main Street. Therefore, no new street trees are proposed or required to be
consistent with this standard. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, the Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of
Criterion 37.
Criterion 38
II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as safety, affect
the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review .and approval.
The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows:
a)
b)
Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees slhall be evenly
spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches.
Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not
closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or
utility poles.
Page 42
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
c)
Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light
standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such
locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2-1/2 feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it
shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines.
Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in
concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow
additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and
such hard surface may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bdcks on
sand, or paver blocks.
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet
above street roadway surfaces.
h)
Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or
weaken the tree. Sidewalks of vadable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees,
subject to approval by the Staff Advisor.
Conclusions of Law: The Council herewith incorporates and adopts is findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 37 and concludes that this property already has street trees in
amounts, types and locations which are consistent with Criterion 38 and the same is
evidenced in Applicant's approved plans.
Criterion 39
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the
approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are
approved by the Staff Advisor.
Conclusions of Law: Applicant does not anticipate the need to remove any existing street
tree during construction of this project. Therefore, this application is consistent with
Criterion 39 by reason of inapplicability.
Criterion 40
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
Conclusions of Law: The Council herewith incorporates and adopts is findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 37 and concludes that this property already has street trees of
a type which are consistent with Criterion 40 and the same is evidenced in Applicant's
approved plans.
Page 43
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Criterion 4 ~!
CITY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION IV
HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
IV-C) Historic District Design Standards
In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by the Planning and Historic
Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District:
Recommended:
IV-C-l) Height. Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the histodc periods on and across the
street.
IV-C-2) Scale. Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings.
IV-C-3) Massing. Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, vaded masses which are common on
most buildings from the historic pedod.
IV-C-4) Setback. Maintain the histodc fa(;ade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in
the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings.
IV-C-5) Roof Shapes. Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area.
IV-C-6) Rhythm of Openings. Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the
fa(;ade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade.
IV-C-7) Platforms. The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older
buildings in Ashland.
IV-C-8) Directional Expression. Relate the vertical, horizontal or nondirectional fa(;ade character of new
buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings.
IV-C-9) Sense of Entry. Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other
pronounced architectural forms.
IV-C-10) Imitations. Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For
new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and
character of the historic district should be used.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Standard #1 above, requires buildings to be of, "a height of existing buildings from the
historic periods on and across the street." Applicant's approved plans and Record p. 222
to 224 photographs show that the height of the proposed building is compatible in height
with buildings on the same block and those across North Main Street in compliance with
the requirements of #1.
Regarding #2 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the size and propm~tions of the
proposed building, relates well to adjacent structures on the same block because, even
though different in some respects, the scale of adjacent buildings is compatible with the
proposed building and consistent with other requirements in Ashland's Site Design and
Page 44
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Use Standards, which require diversity but in ways that make new buildings compatible
with historic ones. For these reasons, this application is consistent with #2.
Regarding #3 above and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the proposed building is
not an uninteresting boxlike form because it has varied masses and interesting
architectural features. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent
with #3.
Regarding ~/4 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the front walls .of adjacent
buildings and those on the same block, are at the North Main Street sidewalk, which is
the same location proposed for the new building, consistent with ~4.
Regarding #5 above, the new building is proposed to have a flat roof similar to buildings
on the same block and others in Ashland's historic downtown area and tlhe same is
evidenced in Applicant's approved plans.
Regarding #6 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed building has
provided for the alternation of wall areas with doors and windows which have been
incorporated into the overall design of the wall facades.
Regarding #7 above, Applicant's approved plans show a raised platform al: the North
Main Street building entrance, consistent with #7.
Regarding #8 above, Applicant's approved plans show the proposed building in relation
to those on the same block and demonstrate that its horizontal faq:ade character relates
appropriately to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings in the same
block, consistent with #8.
Regarding #9 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the main entrance to the new
building off North Main Street is appropriately articulated with pronounced architectural
features which clearly denote the building entrance, consistent with #9.
Regarding #10 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed building
consists of traditional architecture which the Council concludes, well represents our own
time and enhances the nature and character of the adjacent historic buildings and historic
district in general, consistent with #10.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 41.
Criterion 42
CITY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
Page 45
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
VI-A) Height
1)
Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either "stepped" parapets or slightly dissimilar
overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" streetscape appearance. An exception to this standard
would be buildings that have a distinctive vertical/facade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent
buildings. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5 & 10, Avoid 3)
2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10)
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Regarding #1 above, and based upon Applicant's approved plans, stepped parapets have
been used and here produce buildings which have dissimilar, yet compatible heights to
those in this same block.
· Regarding #2 above, although it is not expressed in mandatory terms, the proposed
building has multiple stories.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 42.
VI-B) Setback
1)
2)
3)
Criterion 43
Except for arcades, alcoves, and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the
sidewalk or property line (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5 & 10). Areas having public utility easements or
similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard.
Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a "sense of entry"
through design or use of materials. (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 3).
Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and
new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 7).
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Regarding # 1 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed building
maintains a zero setback from the only sidewalk which exists near the property on North
Main Street and the same clearly demonstrates compliance with the requirements of #1.
· Regarding #2 above, and based upon Applicant's approved plans, the building's North
Main Street entry is recessed, consistent with #2.
Regarding #3' above, Applicant's approved plans show that the only cantilever is the
balcony which is located on the buildings rear elevation. The rear elevation is not a street
facing elevation. Therefore, this application is consistent with #3.
Page 46
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 43.
Criterion 44
VI-C) Width
1)
The width of a building shall extend from side lot line to side lot line (Illustration: Recommend 5). An
exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining
space or rear access for pedestrian walkways.
2)
Lots greater than 80' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by
incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 10;
Avoid 3).
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Regarding #1 above, Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed building will
extend from the northwesterly side property line and very nearly adjoin tlhe existing
building to the southeast, forming a connected series of four buildings which extend
across the North Main Street streetscape within this downtown block, consistent with #1.5
Regarding #2 above, the evidence in Applicant's approved plans and the photographs of
the subject property and surrounding area (Record p. 222 to 224) do respect the
traditional width of buildings found in Ashland's downtown and has done so by
incorporating divisions in the facade in the building's design, which the Council
concludes from the evidence, are rhythmic.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 44.
VI-D) Openings
l)
2)
3)
Criterion 45
Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportion of transparency (i.e., windows)
compatible with the pattem found in the downtown area. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5, 6 & 10).
Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and relationship of new
windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features shall be visually compatible with the
odginal architectural character of the building. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 4 & 9).
Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). (Illustration:
Recommend 1, 5 & 6; Avoid 8).
4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building. (Illustration:
Recommend 5).
5 Three of these four buildings are owned by this owner and, with the proposed building, these three buildings
will extend from side lot line to side lot line of the subject property.
Page 47
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
5) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent. (Illustration: Recommend 10; Avoid 4)..
6)
Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative corbeling
shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 4 & 7). Blank walls
adjacent to a public sidewalk is prohibited.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Regarding #1 above, Applicant's approved plans show a consistent pattern of windows
which are compatible with the pattem found in the downtown area and with buildings in
this same block. Applicant's plans are also consistent with illustrations 1, 5, 6 and 10 of
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards and establish compliance with the
requirements of #1.
Regarding #2 above, this application involves a new building and does not inw)lve altered
or added building elements. Therefore, this application is consistent with #2 by reason of
inapplicability.
· Regarding #3 above, Applicant's approved plans show and clearly demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of #3.
· Regarding g4 above, Applicant's approved plans show and clearly demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of ~4.
· Regarding #5 above, Applicant's approved plans show and clearly demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of #5.
· Regarding #6 above, Applicant's approved plans show windows and other interesting
architectural features which demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #6.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 45.
Criterion 46
VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms
1) Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streeffront shall be maintained. (Illustration:
Recommend 1,5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8).
2) A clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. (Illustration:
Recommend 1,5, 6 & 10).
3)
Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower' window sills,
with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "sense of strength". (Illustration:
Recommend 1,5 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8).
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Page 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
· Regarding # 1, Applicant's approved plans (which also show the streetfront of buildings
within this same block) show and demonstrate compliance with the requirements of #1
Regarding #2, Applicant's approved plans show a canopy which produces a clear visual
division between the ground floor and upper floors compliance with the requirements of
#2.
· Regarding #3, the proposed building has a base similar to buildings on this same block.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 46.
Criterion 47
VI-F) Vertical Rhythms
1)
New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either through actual volumes or
the use of surface details to divide large walls, so as to reflect the underlying historic property lines.
(Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 3).
2)
Storefront remolding or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural system of tlhe volume by
matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surface detailing. (Illustration: Recommend 6;
Avoid 4 & 9).
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Regarding #1, Applicant's approved plans show that the front elevation has been broken
up by stepping back the sides from the middle section and the same promotes a vertical
orientation. The windows and doors of the building further produce a vertical emphasis.
The application is consistent with #1.
Regarding #2, the application involves a new building and not storefront remodeling nor
upper story additions. Therefore this application is consistent with #2 by reason of
inapplicability.
· Therefore, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 47.
Criterion 48
VI-G) Roof Forms
Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless visually screened from
the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front shall incorporate a well defined cornice
line or "cap" along all primary elevations. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5 & 10; Avoid 7).
Conclusions of Law: Applicant's approved plans show that the proposed roof will be flat
Page 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
and will be screened by a parapet which contains a well defined cornice line on all sides of
the building, in compliance with the requirements of Criterion 48.
Criterion 49
VI-H) Materials
1)
2)
Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area
including block, brick, painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 9).
In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled" exteriors with
columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to create multiple surface levels. (Illustration: Recommend
1, 5 & 10; Avoid 7, 8 & 9).
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1, Applicant's approved plans show that the exterior building materials will
be red brick and painted smooth and dappled stucco consistent with #1.
Regarding #2, Applicant's approved plans show transoms on lower floor doors and
windows and these, along with the doors and windows themselves, form complex panels
consistent with #2 (which in any event merely encourages and does not operate as an
approval standard).
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 49.
Criterion 50
VM Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters
1) Awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building land shall not
obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows exist, awning placement shall
be placed below the mezzanine or transom windows where feasible. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10;
Avoid 4 & 9).
2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed between pilasters.
(Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 9).
3) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streeffront shall be maintained
by their respective sidewalk coverings. (Illustration: Recommend 5; Avoid 8):
Conclusions of Law: Based upon Applicant's approved plans, the Council concludes as
follows:
· Regarding #1, the canopy to be located on the front building elevation is proportionate to
the building and does not obscure its architectural details.
· Regarding #2, the proposed canopy is placed between the pilasters.
Page 50
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Regarding #3, the subject property exists on a sloped street. However, as shown on the
approved plans (which also depict nearby buildings in the same block) the prominent
horizontal lines (including canopies) of the proposed building are at similar levels to
similar features on the nearby buildings within this street's streetfront. The proposed
. building has prominent horizontal lines which are similar to the levels of the., horizontal
lines of the streetfront.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 50.
Criterion 51
VI-J) Other
1)
Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of
buildings shall therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, bdck, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or
without windows.
2)
Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding building elements. This
shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers, the horizontal definition of spandrels and
cornices, and other primary structural and decorative elements. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9).
3)
Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design
elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 &
9).
4)
Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. (Refer to Site Design and Use Standards,
Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards.) An exception to this standard would
be paths required for handicapped accessibility.
5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades,
porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible.
6)
Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire
stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional
Use Permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
Regarding #1, Applicant's approved plans show that the rear and sidewalls of the
proposed building are, in fact, fairly simple and consist of red brick, smooth and dappled
painted stucco, consistent with the requirements of #1.
Regarding #2 and #3, these appear to deal with changes to existing buildings. As the
application here is for a new building, it is consistent with #2 and #3 by reason of
inapplicability.
Regarding #4, no parking lot proposed or required in this application. Therefore, the
application is consistent with g4 by reason of inapplicability.
Page 51
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Regarding #5, the Applicant's approved plans show the existence of broad[ sidewalks
which are more than 10 feet wide. The approved plans also show several pedestrian
amenities and details that are oriented to pedestrians consistent with #5. As to sidewalk
seating, none is proposed.
· Regarding #6, the proposed building and uses intended to be housed in it, are not
exclusively automotive. Therefore, the application is consistent with #6.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 51.
Criterion 52
CITY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
DOWNTOWN ASHLAND AREA STANDARDS
The following criteria are adopted with this plan and shall be used as part of the land use approval process:
Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development:
VI-l) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited.
VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, .awnings, and
sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible.
VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are reqUired by all new developments.
VI-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank
walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited.
VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial, residential, or
parking uses.
VI-6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire
stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional
Use permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted.
Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding VI-1 above, no parking lots are required or proposed
Regarding VI-2, the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings .of fact and
conclusions of law for ~4 in Criterion 51 and concludes that this application is consistent
with #VI-2, above.
Regarding VI-3, the only key pedestrian path adjacent to the proposed building is the
sidewalk on North Main Street and it is protected from the weather by a canopy proposed
on the front building faCade, making this application consistent with # VI-3.
Page 52
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Regarding VI-4, Applicant's approved plans show that windows and other architectural
features of interest to pedestrians, have been provided on the building's front fagade,
adjacent to the North Main Street sidewalk, consistent with #VI-4. The Council also
concludes that no blank wall adjacent to sidewalk has been proposed.
Regarding VI-5, Applicant's approved plans and the findings of fact in Section IV, show
that the proposed building is of multiple stories with the upper floors devoted to
commercial and residential uses consistent with #VI-5.
Regarding VI-6 the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings ,of fact and
conclusions of law for #6 in Criterion 51 and concludes that this application is consistent
with #VI-6, above.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 52.
Criterion 53
TREE PRESERVATiON & PROTECTION PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
ALUO Chapter 61 Tree Preservation & Protection
ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit, An Applicant for a Tree Removal-
Staff Permit shalt demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied, The Staff Advisor may require an
arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit,
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the Applicant
demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
.
A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and
injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of
way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or
services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The Applicant must demonstrate that the
condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of
property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated
by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the Applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC
18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
Applicant demonstrates all of the following:
The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site
Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to
be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
Page 53
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
o
Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree remow~l have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans
or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the altematives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
The City shall require the Applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
Conclusions of Law: This application involves the proposed removal of one tree which is
identified as Tree No. 1 on Applicant's Tree Preservation Plan (Record p. A-30). Tree No. 1
is a stand-alone tree. Based upon the evidence at Record p. A-12 to A-21 and A-11, the tree
is not considered a hazard at this time, although according to Applicant's expert landscape
architect and arborist the tree would become a hazard because of the effect construction
would have on the root system. See, Record p. 229. While Applicant's experts agree that the
tree to be removed would become a hazard, it is not deemed a hazard at this time. Therefore,
the Council must consider the removal of this tree (Tree No. 1) pursuant to the four standards
in ALUO 18.61.080(B) -- trees that are not a hazard, and reaches the following conclusions
of law:
Regarding #B(1), the standard expressed in Section VI-C(1) of the Ashland Site Design
and Use Standards (ASDUS) requires buildings in the downtown to extend from side lot
line to side lot line. Moreover, the standard in ASDUS VI-B(4) requires buildings to
maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line (other than fbr arcades,
alcoves and other recessed features). The removal of Tree No. 1 is needed to permit this
application to be consistent with ASDUS VI-C(1) and VI-B(4). Additionally, ASDUS II-
C-2b(2) requires buildings to be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk.
Tree No. 1 is approximately 8 feet from the North Main Street sidewalk. By' setting the
building back the maximum 20 feet, the building would still be within 12 feet of the
trunk. At Record p. A-11, Applicant's expert arborist testified: "If construction is to
occur closer than 20 feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder woulld survive."
Therefore, the removal of Tree No. 1 is also needed to permit this application to be
consistent with ASDUS II-C-2b(2). For these reasons, the Council concluqes that the
removal of Tree No. 1 is in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other
applicable Site Design and Use Standards), consistent with #B(1) above. Moreover,
applicant has agreed, and the Council has required as a condition, to: 1) plant 'trees on the
adjacent ODOT property or other specified location, 2) produce community sculpture
from the removed Alder which, 3) might be located in an art park applicant desires to
create on nearby land. See, Record p. 173. Finally the Council agrees with the opinion of
its Assistant City Attorney that Ashland's tree regulations do not trump its
design/development standards.
· Regarding #B(2), the Council concludes that based upon Record p. A-12 to A-21 and the
expert testimony and opinion of Applicant's landscape architect, that removal of this tree
Page 54
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks because: 1) This tree is within
the building footprint; erosion and soil stability will not be an issue beneath the building,
and because the flow of surface waters will be directed by the new drainage incorporated
into the proposed structure, and 2) this is a solitary tree and not part of a grove or a
windbreak and its removal will not have a negative impact on other trees.
Regarding #B(3), the Council concludes that based upon Record p. A-12 to A-21 and the
expert opinion of Applicant's landscape architect, that removal of this tree will[ not have a
significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity
within 200 feet of the subject property because: 1) the site is adjacent to Ashland Creek
and the existing riparian corridor along the creek contains a wide variety of sizes and
densities of wooded species with a varied tree canopy, and 2) species diversity will not be
negatively impacted because this tree is commonly found along Ashland Creek. For these
reasons, the Council concludes that removal of Tree No. 1 is consistent with #B(3) above.
Regarding #B(4), the Council concludes, based upon Record p. A-12 to A-21, that
Applicant will mitigate the removal of this tree and has agreed to stipulate in Section VI.
However, due to limited available space on the subject property, the Council concludes
that the location of mitigation planting will need to occur off-site at a location yet to be
determined. However, the location must be consistent with ALUO 18.61.084(2) or,
alternatively ALUO 18.61.084(3). The artist's sculpture from the trunk of Tree No. 1 and
the creation of benches from that trunk, have also been offered as additional (but not
required) mitigation and Applicant agreed to stipulate, and the Council has required as a
condition, that the said sculptures be donated to the city for display in an appropriate
location. See, Record p. AA-112 to 115. During the proceeding, Opponent Hopkins
argued at Record p. 259 that the proposed mitigation is inadequate under ALUO
18.61.080(B)(4) and 18.61.084. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and conditions of approval, the Council concludes that the application
is consistent with the requirements of #B(4) and that mitigation required as a condition of
this approval is consistent with ALUO 18.61.084.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council concludes
that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 53.
Criterion 54
ALUO 18,61,200 Tree Protection, Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning
action or building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on
a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
Page 55
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
B.
C.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an Applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which
clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale
and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
b. Location of the ddp 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 arbodst who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of
all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree.
Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in
this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall
be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the
boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel
being developed.
3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless pdor approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for
the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping
or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked 'vehicles.
6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints,
thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris,
or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the Vee protection
zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
Inspection. The Applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City.
Conclusions of Law: Opponent Hopkins at Record p. AA-82 and A-29 showed that not only
was the amount of excavation around the tree not being reduced, it was being increased.
Page 56
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Based upon Applicant's approved plans, there will be no excavation and the only disturbance
within the dripline of the triple-trunk maple (Tree #22) will be to establish footings for the
support pillars and these will not produce appreciable harm to the tree. Opponent Hopkins
also testified at Record p. 8 that the dripline of trees on the subject property and adjacent
property owned by ODOT are not shown and the same is required. The Council concludes
that the Tree Preservation Plan and Tree Protection Guidelines submitted by Applicant in
Record p. A-30 and A-12 to A-21, prepared by his expert landscape architect, fully complies
with Ashland's tree protection standards and accurately shows the dripline. While earlier
plans prepared by Applicant's landscape architect show areas of "critical root mass" rather
than driplines, the approved tree protection plan at Record p. A-30 illustrates driplines in
accordance with the ALUO. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is
consistent with Criterion 54.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS (NOT TIED TO SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA)
The following general objections raised during the proceeding were not identified with any of
the relevant substantive approval criteria but are addressed by the Council as follows:
Objection: Opponent Hopkins at Record p. AA-79 argued that the application, should be
denied on the basis of a failure to properly sign and certify the application either by the filing
date (December 12, 2003) or as of the deemed complete date (February 18, 2004).
Disposition: Applicant's attorney, John Hassen, cited BCT Partnership v. City of Portland,
27 Or LUBA 278 (1994), holding that a local government is not required to den), a land use
application where the application form is unsigned. Rather, if a local regulation does not
expressly state a signed application is necessary to confer jurisdiction, the local government
may consider the matter to be procedural and consider the application on the merits. Here,
Ashland's land use ordinance does not specify a signed application is a jurisdictional
necessity and the City Council holds that it is not.
Additionally, the application in this case was found by City Staff to be "complete" within the
meaning of ORS 227.178(2) on February 18, 2004. Applicant was not notified the city
considered the application to be incomplete for lack of a signature and the City Council finds
it would be inequitable at this point to refuse to consider the application on the merits.
Finally, the application has since been signed and the City Council can find no prejudice as a
result of the initial, unsigned, submission. The objection is denied.
Objection: Opponent Hopkins at Record p. AA-80 argued that portions of the planning
process have been denied to opponents, being swept along by the force of the 120 day rule.
Disposition: The Council concludes that all opponents were given a fair and even-handed
opportunity to present evidence and argument during all municipal proceedings on this
Page 57
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
matter, consistent with the procedures established in the ALUO and in ORS 197.763.
substantial rights were denied this or any party during the proceedings.
No
Objection: By written objection dated May 25, 2004, Opponent Hopkins, at Record p. AA-
85, objected to the submission of "further evidence," including any additional Staff Report,
on the ground that Opponents' time for testifying to the Council had expired. The Council
finds that all Opponents who wished to testify completed their testimony during the
continued hearing, June 1, 2004. The public hearing was continued to June 15, 2004, for the
purpose of receiving Applicant's written rebuttal to Opponents' testimony and for the
Council to inquire of Applicants.
Disposition: During the continued hearing on June 1, 2004, neither Opponent Hopkins nor
any other Opponent or participant objected to any evidence, argument or response, offered by
Applicant or member of the Planning Staff, nor did they request a further continuance of the
hearing or opportunity to respond to such evidence, argument or response. Had any sUch
objection or request for continuance been made the Council would have considered them in
accordance with ORS 197.763(4)(a) and (b). Mr. Hopkins' general, preemptive, objection
provided no basis for action by the Council.
Objection Opponent Hopkins argued that Applicant's drawings repeatedly used the "coarse
data" to create the appearance that the flood plain corridor and 100-year flood plain lines, are
the actual flood plain limits of 1872 and 1875.5 feet.
Disposition: The Council concludes that the official map which adopted the Flood Plain
Corridor shows the subject property as a small area approximately ¼ inch square in size,
through which the flood plain corridor line was drawn. The corridor boundary was later
translated from this map to Ashland's GIS mapping database by the Ashland Planning
Department and this is all that exists; there is simply no map of greater accuracy which
depicts the location of the Ashland Creek flood plain corridor. As to FEMA data, the same is
based upon elevations and these were translated to applicants' plans by way of on-site survey
data. The FEMA flood plain elevation was accurately depicted on Applicant's plans. The
Council concludes that the both the FEMA BFE and Ashland Creek flood plain co. rddor were
accurately depicted and the Council has taken action on this application based upon the most
accurate information possible. Moreover, Applicant's expert engineers verified the accuracy
of the FEMA BFE and found it to be accurate.
Objection: Opponent Colin Swales testified at Record p. AA-164 that the aggregate group of
buildings on the subject property are in excess of 10,000 square feet and are therefore subject
of the provision of public open space or plaza.
Page 58
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
Disposition: The 10,000 square feet issue raised by Opponent Swales is set forth, in Section
II-C-3 of the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS). The standard referred to
states:
"Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building frontage in
excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying
to the standards for Basic and Detail Site review, shall conform to the following standards:"
For this criterion to apply, a project must fall within both of the numbered subparts. This
property is located within the Detail Site Review Zone, therefore, the project meets subpart 2
of the criterion. The question then becomes whether it meets subpart 1. That is, whether this
is a development which involves a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet. As we
understand Mr. Swales' contention, he believes that because the aggregate .of existing
buildings, together with the proposed building are in excess of 10,000 square feet, that
subpart 1 is also met and, therefore, the standards under ASDUS II-C-3 apply, and the same
cannot be met. However, the answer to the question hinges on what a "Development" is.
The SDUS does not contain any definitions to help resolve this question. Therefore, we must
go back to the ALUO to see if there is a definition of Development that helps resolve the
question.
The only place in the ALUO in which the term "development" is defined is in the Physical
and Environment Constraints Permit Chapter: ALUO 18.62.030(E) which provides the
following definition:
"E. Development - Alteration of the land surface by:
.
Earth-moving activities such as grading, filling, stripping, or cutting involving more than 20 cubic
yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than i 000 sq. fi. on any lot;
Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure; except that additions to
existing buildings of less than 300 sq. fi. to the existing building footprint shall not be considered
development for section 18.62.080.
3. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter."
Of key importance is subsection 2, which, in pertinent part, defines Development as the,
"construction of a building". There is nothing in the definition that ties Develop:ment to the
construction of an aggregate of buildings. Therefore, as long as the proposed ]project is a
building, and is not an addition to the existing buildings, the 10,000 square fee, t provision
needs to be applied only to the construction of the proposed building. In the approved plans,
the building will have its own foundation and its own walls. There are not any slhared walls
with other buildings, although, there are abutting walls. Consequently, under the: provisions
of the ADUS, this building has been reviewed as an independent building and, the approved
plans show the building to have less than the 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and less
than 100 feet of frontage. Therefore, this project not subject to the large scale project
standards in ASDUS II-C-3.
Page 59
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
The only instance in which the ALUO addresses an aggregate of buildings is in the 'big box'
provisions which limits the total frontage to no more than 300 lineal feet and total gross floor
area square footage to no more than 45,000. The evidence shows that the aggregate of the
proposed building, together with the existing buildings, does not violate the big box
provisions. Therefore the standards in ASDUS II-C-3 are not applicable and nLeed not be
addressed.
Objection: During the proceeding before the City Council, Opponent Randall Hopkins
objected on the basis that the application would result in the removal of trees located on
adjacent land owned by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
Disposition: The evidence showed that trees located on the adjacent ODOT property grow
over and onto the subject property and that one of these trees was either a hazard tree or of
insufficient caliper so as to require analysis. The Council also concluded that no special
permit to prune these trees was required because they exist on land that is publicly owned.
Moreover, the proposed pruning would not constitute removal as defined by the ordinance
even if a permit were required.
VI
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council herewith accepts the various stipulations of Applicant and attaches the
same as conditions of this approval, along with the additional conditions enumerat.ed below:
Applicant Stipulations:
o
Heating/Cooling/Lighting: Applicant will provide the method of heating, cooling and
lighting of the building and the approximate annual amount of energy used per each
source and the methods used to make the approximation at the time the construction
drawings are submitted and prior to issuance of building permits.
2. Engineered Utility Plans: Applicant will provide engineered plans which show the
location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development.
.
Recycling: Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.115, Applicant will provide an opportunity-to-
recycle site for the use of the project occupants and said site will be located, within the
interior of the proposed building.
.
Mitigation for Tree Removal: Applicant will mitigate the removal of Tree No. 1 as
shown on Record p. A-30. The said mitigation will be in accordance with ALUO
18.61.084. However, because space on the subject property is limited, the location of the
Page 60
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
o
.
.
.
,
mitigation planting will need to occur off-site at a location to be determined by the City of
Ashland. As further mitigation: 1) Applicant will commission an artist's sc. ulpture (as
envisioned in Record p. AA-112 to 115) from the trunk of Tree No. 1 (a.nd various
benches) for display in a location deemed appropriate by the city, 2) Applicant will plant
ferns and other appropriate riparian vegetation within the riparian corridor ,of Ashland
Creek, and 3) also see Applicant's Intentions, Not A Part of this Application as
described in Section I hereinabove.
Tree Protection Measures: Applicant will fully observe and implement the tree
protection measures recommended by registered landscape architect, John Galbraith, in
the Tree Preservation Plan and Tree Protection Guidelines submitted by Applicant at
Record p. A-30 and A-12 to A-21.
Fill: Fill will be engineering and constructed in accord with applicable requiirements of
the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70.
Pedestrian Bridge: The proposed pedestrian bridge will replace the existing; bridge on
the subject property. Applicant has proposed a new engineered bridge to :replace the
existing bridge and will be slightly realigned to meet Ashland design and floodplain
standards. Applicant testified that the final design of the bridge will be carried out by a
qualified Oregon-registered engineer and will be constructed at an elevation of 1877 feet,
5 feet above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 1,872 feet and otherwise designed
and constructed to meet local, state and federal flood regulations. Conditions of the
approval require the bridge to be properly engineered and Ashland regulations will ensure
that the realigned location will comply will all municipal standards, including ALUO
18.62.070(B).
Flood Proofing: All portions of the property required to be flood proofed, will conform
in all respects with the relevant provisions of ALUO 18.62.070(C) and AMC 15.10. The
elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor will be certified by a qualified engineer or
surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure
Storage of Materials within Flood Plain Corridor: Neither Applicant nor Applicant's
tenants shall store petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic: chemicals
on any part of the property located within the Flood Plain Corridor.
10. Irrigation System: All proposed living landscape areas on the property, will be served by
an automatic underground irrigation system.
11. Drainage: Applicant will provide plans prepared by a qualified engineer registered in
Oregon which address how adequate drainage will be provided for this project in
accordance with city standards.
Page 61
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
12.
Uses: Applicant will ensure that not less than 65 percent of the gross floor area of the
ground floor of the building will be occupied by uses that are permitted or special
permitted and excluding residential uses.
13.
Flood Damage Prevention Regulations: Applicant will comply fully with Ashland
Municipal Code (AMC) 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations) in the ipreparation
and submittal of construction plans for the proposed building.
14. Riparian Enhancement: Applicant will enhance the riparian area beneatlh both the
existing and proposed new bridge. The riparian enhancement will be subject to city
approval of the enhancement plans.
15. Bridge Support: Applicant will eliminate the bridge support pier within the Ashland
Creek flood corridor and instead anchor the bridge to the building deck
Additional Conditions imposed by the City Council (which include the below conditions
imposed by the Planning Commission in its approval of this application:
1. That all proposals of the Applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
.
That the installation of plant materials within Riparian Preservation Lands (both sides of
the creek) shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor in consultation with the
Oregon Fish & Wildlife Department and Ashland Tree Commission. Recom:mendations
on plant materials shall be incorporated into a revised landscaping plan..till planting
shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
.
That both sides of the bank be stabilized through appropriate armoring, such as the
placement of medium to large boulders. The location of the creek armor shall be noted
on the revised landscaping plan and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to
commencement of building permit review, pursuant to the approval of appropriate
government agencies with jurisdiction (i.e. State & Federal).
.
That a metal street tree grate, consistent with the standards of the Public Works
Department, be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy around the
existing street tree along North Main Street.
.
That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior
components of the project be included at the time of submission of building permit. The
information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of
materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application.
6. That the recommendations of the Historic Commission be incorporated into the final
design and approved by the Staff Advisor. Building sections identifying the height,
Page 62
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
.
.
o
10.
11.
width, depth, material and texture of all exterior architectural features shall be provided
with the building permit to verify consistency with the approved building elevations.
That the Applicant submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all
other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric
Department prior to final planning approval and /or building permit: issuance.
Transformers and cabinet shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Company.
That the building setback from the creek channel shall be staked on-site, verified and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to building permit issuance, and maintained
throughout the duration of the project.
That temporary erosion control measures shall be identified on the construction drawings,
approved by the Staff Advisor, and installed on-site prior to building permit issuance.
Temporary erosion control measures shall be maintained throughout the duration of the
project and until the final landscaping has been installed.
That the design of all storm water mn-off outfall locations be reviewed by the Public
Works Department and approved by the Staff Advisor. Outfall locations shall be situated
as close to the elevation of the creek channel as possible to reduce the potential for bank
erosion. Outfall locations shall be adequately armored and vegetated to reduce the
potential of bank erosion.
That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan
shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the
development, including the location of water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and
clean-outs, storm drainage and catch basins. Given the elevation of lower floor levels,
sanitary sewer service may require pumping to the sewer main located in North Main
Street. In addition, connecting to City water may require the cutting of North ]Main Street
due to the lines anticipated location on the opposite side of the street.
12. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to
hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the
construction drawings and reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior
to issuance of a building permit.
13. That all portions of the building located at an elevation of 1873 or below shall be flood-
proofed and designed to the standards identified in 15.10.080 and as suggested by FEMA
for non-residential construction. The flood-proofing measures shall be clearly identified
on the construction drawings, reviewed and approved by the Building Official, and
certified by an Oregon registered professional engineer that the design and methods of
Page 63
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the
provisions of 15.10.080 and FEMA.
14.
That the covenant or similar deed restriction be recorded on the property prohibiting the
establishment or installation of any structure or similar element on the opposite side of
the creek (east side) that would in any way restrict the overflow of floodwaters into the
area beneath the viaduct. The legal instrument shall be prepared by the Applicant and
reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor and City Attorney prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
15.
That a sign, awning and marquee program for the development be included at the time of
building permit review. The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs,
locations and approximate square footage based upon the requirements described in the
Sign Code 18.96. Leases for commercial tenant spaces shall note that awnings;, marquees
or similar pedestrian shelters shall be consistent with City Downtown Design Standards
(VI-l), reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by the Planning
Department Staff Advisor.
16.
That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted on their January 9,
2004 document be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
recommendations shall be included on a revised landscaping plan and final irrigation plan
at the time of submission of building permits.
17.
That proposed Tree Protection measures address existing trees located immediately north
of the property within the State right-of-way. The approval of off-site mitigation on the
State right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant shall seek
ODOT's consent of the planting of a large specimen tree (one to two trees, depending on
the species and what canopy it will reach), two and one-half inches in caliper to mitigate
the loss of canopy from the removal of the alder tree. The landscape architect can make
the decision as to what type of tree(s). At maturity the tree should be considered a
signature tree.
18.
That an opportunity-to-recycle site for use by project residents shall be identified for the
project in accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of tlhe Ashland
Land Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit.
19. That the construction drawings submitted at the time Building Permit review shall
demonstrate compliance with 18.62.070(G).
20. That wood clad windows be installed on the front windows with a four-inch mullion
(separation). Such revisions to be clearly identified on the building permit plans.
22. Submit complete new set of drawings, with engineer's stamp on architect's drawing (or
equivalent) to demonstrate that the flood storage calculations fit the design shown, and
acknowledge the tree protection requirements. Accurate flood plain and riparian setbacks
Page 64
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
must be shown. Accurate figures for calculation of storage volume must tie to actual
areas, number of pillars, etc.
23. An engineer is required to stamp the design and flood compliance of any creek crossing.
24. Restore the FEMA elevation certificate requirement at the higher elevation (#14 from pg
104).
25. Correct #13: FEMA flood elevation plus one foot is 1873 not 1773 feet.
26. Plans and documents shall be reviewed and agreed to by Public Works for ,compliance
with City's strictest flood damage protection rules.
27. Utility and storm water plans shall reflect tree protection measures to the greatest extent
possible.
28. Applicant to pursue Art Park concept with ODOT and the City of Ashland (Parks, Public
Art Commission, Planning, etc.). If not possible in preferred location, mitigate tree loss
elsewhere on public land.
29. Tree Commission to be consulted prior to issuance of building permit :for revised
comments and mitigation plans under Conditions #16 and #17.
30. Stipulation #9, page 173, of Applicants' submittal be brought forward and extended
beyond toxic materials to any materials that would reduce the flood storage volume
beneath the building.
31. Artist sculptUres produced from the removed Alder tree shall be donated to the City of
Ashland.
VII
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Council affirms the
decision of the Planning Commission and concludes that this application is consistent with all
of the applicable relevant substantive criteria and development standards of the City of
Ashland. Therefore the application is approved and made subject to all of the stipulations and
conditions set forth in Section VI bove.
Dated: /~Lg¢~LA~lr I(~i'Z.OOq
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Page 65
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
City of Ashland, Oregon
By: Alan DeBoer
Mayor
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Ashland Planning Action 2004-002
Page 66