HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-052 Findings - RC Invest
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CIITY OF ASHLAND
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR )
A 7-LOT SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT, )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN )
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT, )
VARIANCE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING )
LOCATION, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND)
AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS)
FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.75 ACRES OF )
LAND ZONED R-1-10 WHICH IS LOCATED)
AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH )
MOUNTAIN AVENUE AND PROSPECT )
STREET IN THE CITY OF ASHLAND, )
OREGON )
)
R & C Investments: Applicant )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION; PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Applicant, R & C Investments, a partnership involving Charles A. Cochran and Bruce
Roberts, filed the following consolidated land use applications with the City of Ashland:
1. Subdivision. Application for a Preliminary Plat pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) Chapter 18.80. The application seeks to create seven lots from the 1.75-acre
subject property, which consists of three existing lots, two of which are occupied by
dwellings. The future seven lots will be occupied by singlt~-family dwellings. An
existing dwelling will continue to exist but as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU).
2. Conditional Use Permit. Application fc)f a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit an
existing single family dwelling on Tax Lot 3500 to continue to exist and operate in the
future as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) pursuant to ALUO 18.20.030. Withdrawn
by Applicant.
3. Exception to Street Standards. Along Prospect Street, an exception is sought to street
right-of-way and paving width standards~, and to eliminate the parkrow between the curb
and the sidewalk on the property frontage. Along South Mountain A venue, an exception
is sought to permit a required planting strip and sidewalk within an easement on the
subject property rather than \vithin the right-of-way of South Mountain Avenue:.
4. Variance to Off-Street Parking. Application seeking variance relief for the purpose of
permitting the two (2) required off-street parking spaces for the ARU to be located on an
adjacent parcel. Withdrawn by Applicant.
-------~~-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 1 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
5. Tree Protection/Removal. Application for Tree Removal Perrnit for the renloval of two
trees over 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) Two of the three existing lots are
exempt from the tree ren10val standards of ALUO 18.61 (Tree Preservation and
Protection) pursuant to ALUO 18.61.035(B). Tree protection/removal on the other
existing lot is governed by ALUO 18.61 and ALUO 18.62.090 (Development Standards
for Wildfire Lands).
6. Wildfire Lands. Authorization for subdivision under the special standards \vhich apply
to this land which is within the area designated Wildfire Lands on Ashland's Physical &
Environmental Constraints Map
Following public notice in accordance with law, the applications were heard by the Ashland
Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") on October 12, 2004. The public hearing
was continued to November 9, 2004 and following the conclusion of public testimony, the
record and public hearing were closed and the Planning Commission deliberated on this
matter and voted approve Applications 1, 3, 5 and 6 above and not to approve Applications 2
and 4. Within the time period specified in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was timely submitted by Appellant Randall
Hopkins. No party sought the City Council's review of the Planning Commission decision to
deny Applications 2 and 4 and during the Council proceedings, Applicant's attorney
indicated that Applicant had withdrawn these.
Following public notice in accordance with law, the Ashland City Council ("City Council" or
"Council") conducted a public hearing on February 1, 2005 to hear this appeal. The public
hearing was continued to February 15, 2005. Following the conclusion of public testimony,
the record and public hearing were closed and the City Council deliberated on this matter and
voted approve Applications 1, 3, 5 and 6. Applications 2 and 4, earlier withdrawn from
consideration by Applicant, were not considered by the Council on appeal. These Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law support the Council's decision in this matter.
II
EVIDENCE BEFOnE THE CITY COUNCil
The evidence which was before the City Council is contained in the City's file on this matter
(Planning Action 2004-105) and the record has been assembled and the pages numbered.
Citations herein are to record page number for Planning Action 2004-105.
III
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA
The standards and criteria under the applications enumerated in Section I (other than the two
applications withdrawn by Applicant) mus1 be considered, are in the Ashland Land Use
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 2 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Ordinance (ALUO). The approval criteria and relevant prOVISIons of the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan are recited verbatim below and in Section V herein, where each is
followed by the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the City Council.
A. SUBDIVISION; Preliminary Plat
18.80.040 PRELIMINARY PLAT
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and other supplementary
material as may be required to indicate the gene,ral program and objectives of the project to the office of the
Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a s,heet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-four (24} inches in size
at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
C. General information. The following general information shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the name of another
subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together
with easements and other important features, such as section lines and corners, and monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to remain on the property after
platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
F. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets, and the re~lationship of the streets to any
projected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there
is no development plan, as suggested by the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers, for all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
-~~~-----
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 3 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by
the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a Master Plan for the LJnsubdivided portion.
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying
the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed
subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the exislling streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be subdivided, a preliminary
grading plan may be required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show existing and
finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan
shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and report from the City
Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission meeting following submission of the
plat, the Planning Commission will review the plan and may give tentative approval of the preliminary
plat as submitted or as it may be modified or, if disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its
reasons therefore.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning Commission's approval of the final plat
provided there is no change in the plan of subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat and there is full
compliance with the requirements of this TitlH.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on two (2) copies of the pn~liminary plat,
including reference to any attached documents, describing conditions. One (1) copy shall be returned to
the subdivider and the other retained by the Planning Commission.
B. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.88.050 STREET STANDARDS
All development under this Chapter shall conform to the Street Standards as defined in 18.88.020.1<:.
The following standards regulate the development of streets and are in addition to the standards contained in the
Street Standards Handbook.
A. Private Drive. A private drive is a road in private ownership, not dedicated to the public, which serves three
or less units. No curbs or sidewalks are requimd for a private drive. On-street parking is prohibited on
private drives. The private drive standard is as follows:
3 Units 15 feet with 20 feet dedicated width
2 Units15 feet with 20 feet dedicated width
1 Unit12 feet with 15 feet dedicated width
B. Dedicated Public Streets Required. All roads which serve four units or greater, and which are in an R-1, RR
and WR zone, must be dedicated to the public and shall be developed to the Street Standards of this
section.
C. Dead End. No dead end road shall exceed 500 feet in length, not including the turnaround. Dead end roads
must terminate in an improved turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards guidel.ines adopted
pursuant to Section 18.88.090.
D. Obstructed Streets. Creating an obstructed street is prohibited.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 4 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
E. Street Grade. Street grades measured at the stl-eet centerline for dedicated streets and flag drives shall be
as follows:
Private drives serving structures greater than ~~4' in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire
Work Area of 20' by 40' within 50' of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the
structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed.
Private drives and work areas shall be deemed Fire Lanes and subject to all requirements thereof.
Private drives greater than 250' in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance
Standards Guidelines as provided in 18.88.090.
F. Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance
requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the StrE~et Standards in 18.88.050 if all
of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
2. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
C. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
ALUO Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation & Protection
ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-
Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's
report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
ALUO 18.61.080(8) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with otlher 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.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigat~3 for the removal of each trel3 granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this
section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate
landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 5 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
IV
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Council reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this
matter.
1. Description of Project Area. The subject property consists of three parcels, two of
which have existing single family dwellings, as described in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Description, Ownership, Size, Tax Code Existing Development and Zoning
Sources: Jackson County Assessor; Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
. - Acres I Tax I Existing Development
. . . . . . . . Code
39-1 E-16AD TL 3400 R&C Investments 0.41 5-01 Single-family dwelling R-1-10
39-1 E-16AD TL 3500 R&C Investments 0.70 5-01 Single-family dwelling and R-1-10
detached 9arage
39-1 E-16AD TL 3600 R&C Investments 0.64 5-01 Vacant R-1-10
Total 1.75
2. Property Location: The property is within the corporate limits and acknow]edged urban
growth boundary of the City of Ashland. The property is located at 759 and 769 South
Mountain A venue at the southwest comer of the intersection of South Mountain A venue
and Prospect Street.
3. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: The Ashland Conlprehensive Plan designaks the subject
property Residential. The property is zoned R-l-l O. See, Record p. 282.
4. Surrounding Land Uses: Record p. 276 through 286 accurately depicts the pattern of
existing land partitioning and development in the surrounding area. Lands developed with
single-family detached dwellings on individual urban-size lots surround the subject
property.
5. Project Description: Applicant proposes to create by subdivision, seven discrete lots to
be occupied in the future by single-family dwellings. Two of the lots are occupied by
existing dwellings. While Applicant originally proposed to retain the dwelling on Tax Lot
3400 as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU), that application was not approved by the
Planning Commission and Applicant withdrew further consideration of this matter. While
the structure may remain, it cannot be used as a dwdling and would instead be used as a
-~~---
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 6 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
studio or for some other purpose which requires neither kitchen nor bathroom facilities.
According to the records of the Jackson County Assessor, the existing dweJ!ling has 900
square feet of gross habitable floor area. Where feasible, trees have been retained and
preserved, although only Tax Lot 3600 is subject to the tree protection standards in ALUO
18.61 because the other two lots (Tax Lot's 3400 and 3500 are developed with dwellings).
6. Access: Access to the seven proposed lots will be directly from Prospect Street, South
Mountain A venue or from a Private Drive, as described in Table 2 below.
Table 2
ACCE~SS to Lots
Source: Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Prospect Street Prospect Street
2 Private Drive Prospect Street
3 Private Drive Prospect Street
4 Private Drive Private Drive
5 Private Drive Private Drive
6 Private Drive Private Drive
7 South Mountain Avenue South Mountain Avenue
7. Topography: The subject property ranges in elevation from approximately 2,320 feet at
its southwest corner to approximately 2,250 feet at its northeast corner and has
reasonably moderate slopes. The evidence shows that no portion of the subject property
exceeds a slope of 22 percent. Cuts and fills (and proposed retaining walls) are shown on
applicant's plans, along with preliminary grading information. The topography of the
subject property is indicative of topography in nearby areas in that it is moderately steep
and evenly sloped.
8. Public Facilities and Services; Utilities.: The routing for and locations of the following
existing and planned public facilities and utilities are shown on the plan at Record p.
A47:
. Sanitary Sewer
. Public Water
. Storm Drainage
. Streets
. Utilities
-~.~---
-------------
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 7 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
The subject property is more particularly served by the follo\ving public facilities and
servIces:
8.1 Sanitary Sewer: According to City of Ashland Engineering Department, there are
existing sanitary sewer lines in both Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street that are
adequate in condition capacity to support the proposed subdivision.
8.2 Public Water: There is an existing 4-inch water main in Prospect Street.
Representatives of the Ashland Water Departrnent have indicated that additional
development will require upgrading the main to a larger size to accommodate the
proposed subdivision.
8.3 Storm Drainage: Applicant testified that representatives of the City of Ashland
Engineering Department have indicated to Applicant's agent, that the existing storm
drainage facilities in Prospect and N[ountain are sufficient :in condition and capacity
to support the proposed subdivision.
8.4 Streets and Transportation: The property fronts upon and has direct access by way
of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street, both of which are city streets, owned
and maintained by the City of Ashland. Access to the individual lots (here proposed
to be created) is as shown in above Table 2.
The property also fronts upon Pros.pect Street. Prospect Street terminates at the
northwest corner of the subject property and cannot be extended due to steep terrain
and the existence development. Lot 1 is proposed to take legal and actual access from
Prospect. Prospect Street is classified in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan as a
Neighborhood Street, however it does not meet Ashland standards; it is presently a
gravel road without curbs, gutters sidewalks or planting strips. Moreover, existing
dwellings and other structures (on the north side of Prospect Street) encroach upon
the street right-of-way. A portion of Prospect Street was vacated by action of the
City Council to accommodate structures that were constructed in the public street
right-of-way. See, Record p. A22-A23. Applicant has proposed an exception to
certain street standards along the frontage of Prospect Street. These 'Nill permit
Prospect (west of South Mountain A venue) to be improved to a width ranging from
25 feet on its east end and tapering to 22 feet on its west end. The exception would
also allow the elimination of a parkrow between the curb and sidewalk on the
property frontage. A sidewalk installed at the curbside is proposed along the western
2/3 of the Prospect frontage. The improvements to Prospect Street are set forth in the
Council Conditions 8, 11 and 29 in Section VI.
Applicant has proposed a Private Drive that will be able to functionally serve five of
the proposed parcels two of which have legal access to Prospect Street.
Applicant had also requested an exception to allow existing juniper shrubs and a
retaining wall to remain in front of the proposed lot seven. The exception would include
--~~.._-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 8 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
the elimination of the proposed planting strip for approximately 85 feet. A.pplicant is
proposing that the juniper and sidewalk remain and that a sidewalk of five feet be
installed adjacent to the existing curb on South Mountain Avenue. No other exceptions to
South Mountain Avenue are requested. Table 4 below, shows the City standards in
relation to the nature and extent of the exceptions sought by Applicant:
8.5 Police and Fire Protection: Police: and fire protection are provided by the City of
Ashland.
8.6 Utilities: Electricity, natural gas, telephone, CA TV and internet access are
immediately available to the subject property. Utilities will be placed underground
pursuant to requirements of the ALUO.
9. Trees; Existing Natural Features; D(~sign Process: Portions of the subject property
(primarily the westerly portion) are heavily wooded. There an~ 62 trees on the property
which have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of six inches or greater, 19 of which are
proposed to be removed. Three additional trees exist on abutting properties and will be
protected during construction and retained. The trees to be removed and those to be
preserved are inventoried and shown on the plans at Record p. A 16 (Sheet L 1 Tree
Protection and Removal Plan). The strategies for tree preservation are set forth in the
Tree Protection/Removal Plan Narrative prepared by Applicant's expert landscape
architect, Galbraith & Associates, Inc (Record p. 105-120). Earlier project designs
examined by Applicant which are in evidence n~sulted in the required removal of
substantially greater numbers of trees (and substantial cuts and fills). Applicant acquired
the parcel now intended to be Lot 7, to enable the access road for the subdivision to be
placed where now proposed; without this parcel, the road was required to traverse the
westerly portion of the property - the portion of the property most heavily wooded _
and in doing so, necessitated the removal of substantially greater numbers of trees.
Moreover, building envelopes have been adjusted to reduce tree removal to the greatest
extent practical, while still providing reasonable flexibility for future home design and
siting.
10. Wildfire Protection Area: The subject property is located within a Wildfire Protection
Area based upon the Physical & Environmental Constraints Map. A Wildfire Protection
Plan has been produced, by landscape architects Galbraith & Associates, Inc. (Record p.
A46). Dry grasses, Mountain Mahogany and brushy grove of Manzanita will be removed
as the same exists as a wildfire hazard. Nearby areas are similar to the subject property
in topography and vegetation.
11. Wetlands: According to the City of Ashland Wetland Inventory, there are no wetlands
on the subj ect property.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 9 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
v
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The following conclusions of law are based on the findings of fact contained above in
Section IV and these relate to the approval criteria for the various land use applications now
before the City Council on appeal. The standards and approval criteria are recited verbatim
below and followed by the conclusions of la'w of the Council:
A. SUBDIVISION
Purpose of Application: The purpose of this application is to consolidate and subdivide
three existing lots into seven lots as shown on Applicant's plans. The City Council observes
that subdivisions are governed by precise design and development standards and that no
"approval criteria" per se, exist in the ALUO which are prerequisite to the approval of a
preliminary subdivision plat. The various design and developnlent standards in ALUO
Chapter 18.80 (Subdivisions) are addressed below. The street standards for subdivisions are
those for development which proceeds under Ashland's Performance Standards Options in
Chapter 18.88.
18.20.040 General regulations
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the 1~-1 zone shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, except
six thousand (6,000) square feet for corner lots. R-1 areas may be designed for seventy-five hundred
(7,500), or ten thousand (10,000) square foot minimum lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make
larger sizes necessary. Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number following the R-1 notation which
represents allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-1-5 5,000 square feet
R-1-7.5 7,500 square feet
R-1-10 10,000 square feet
B. Minimum lot width:
Interior lots 50 feet
Corner lots 60 feet
All R-1-7.5 lots 65 feet
All R-1-10 lots 75 feet
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum depth of one hundred fifty
(150) feet unless lot configuration prevents furthler development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth
requirements shall not apply to lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than
its depth, and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in width. (Ord. 2052, 1979; Ord. 2425 S3,
1988)
D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15 feet excluding garages. Unenclosed
porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of any existinn public utility
easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line. All garages accessed from the front shall have
a minimum setback of 20' from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a corner lot
abutting a public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in
excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar
Access. (Ord. 2097 S5, 1980; Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752,1995)
---
-~--~-~---
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 10 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories in
height, whichever is less.
F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50%) percent in an R-1-5 District, forty-five (45%)
percent in an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (40%) percent in an R-1..10 District.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact and evidence submitted by
Applicant, the City Council concludes as follows:
1. All lots shown on the Preliminary Plat meet the minimum lot area for the R-l-l 0 zone.
2. All lots shown on the Preliminary Plat m.eet the minimum width requirement for the R-l-
10 zone.
3. All lots shown on the Preliminary Plat rneet the minimum lot depth requiren1ent for the
R-I-I0 zone.
4. The building envelopes shown on the Tree Protection Plan and Prelin1inary Plat
demonstrate compliance with the standard yard requirements.
5. The ALUO does not require the submittal of architectural plans as part of subdivision
approval. However, Applicant has agreed to stipulate that no structure will exceed the
lesser of thirty-five (35) feet in height or two and one-half (2'ii ) stories.
6. Applicant has agreed to stipulate that the maximum coverage for each lot will not exceed
forty (40) percent and Applicant's stipulations have been made conditions attached to this
approval.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18.80.020 Design Standards
A. Acceptability - principles: The subdivision shall conform with any development plans and shall take into
consideration any preliminary plans made in anticipation thereof. The subdivision shall conform with the
requirements of State laws and the standards established by this Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions of law herein that the application as submitted conforms to the requirements
of State laws and the standards established by this Chapter.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. Streets: The Street Standards ,in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, shall apply to
developments under this chapter.
1. Reserve Strips. Reserve strips or street plugs shall be created to control access onto any street which
terminates upon any undeveloped land through which the street might logically extend. In such cases,
the street shall be provided to within one foot of the boundary line of the tract with the remaining one
foot being granted in fee to the City as a reserve strip. Upon approved dedication of the extension of the
affected street, the one-foot reserve strip shall be dedicated by the City to the public use as a part of
said street. This dedication will be automatic and without further action by the City. This action shall also
-~----_.-
-----~~---
-_.._~..~-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 11 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
apply retroactively to all previously created reserve strips where the streets have been extended and
dedicated for street purposes. (Ord. 2436, 1 ~)87)
2. Alignment. All streets as far as is practical shall be in alignment with the existing streets by continuation
of the center lines thereof. The staggering of street alignment resulting in liT" intersections shall
wherever practical leave a minimum distance of 125 feet between the center lines of streets.
3. Future extension of streets. Where necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory subdivision of
adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision and the resulting dead-end
streets may be approved without a turnaround. Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to
preserve the objectives of street extensions.
4. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practical,
except where topography requires a lesser angle. Property lines at intersections with arterial streets
shall have a minimum corner radius of twenty (20) feet and property lines at other stl'eet and alley
intersections shall have a minimum corner radius adequate to allow sidewalk and utility space and a
curb radius of ten (10) feet.
5. Existing streets. Whenever existing streets adjacent to or within a tract are of inadequate width,
additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision.
6. Frontage and limited access roads may be required as defined in Sections 18.7'2.040(L) and
18.72.040(M) of this Title.
7. Access to subdivision. All major means of access to a subdivision or major partition shall be from
existing streets fully improved to City standards, and which, in judgment of the Director of Public Works,
have the capacity to carry all anticipated traffic from the development.
8. Half streets. Half streets, while generally not acceptable, may be approved when essential to the
reasonable development of the subdivision, when in conformity with the other requirements of these
regulations, and when the Planning Commission finds it will be practical to require the dedication of the
other half when the adjoining property is subdivided. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be
subdivided, the other half of the street may be platted within such tract. Reserve strips and street plugs
may be required to preserve the objectives of the half streets.
9. Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall have a maximum length of five
hundred (500) feet. All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a circular turnaround unless alternate designs
for turning and reversing direction are approved by the Planning Commission.
10. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of
existing streets in Ashland and vicinity except for extensions of existing streets. Streets which are an
extension of, or are in alignment with, existing streets shall have the same name as the existing street.
Street names and numbers shall conform to the establishment pattern for the City and shall be subject
to the approval of the Planning Commission.
11. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. WhE~rever the proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to a
railroad right-of-way, provision may be required for a street approximately parallel to and on each side
of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land between the streets and
the railroad. The distance shall be great enough to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting
along the railroad right-of-way.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact In Section IV and the
evidence submitted herein, the City Council concludes as follows:
1. No reserve strips or street plugs are necessary or required for this subdivision.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 12 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
2. The only new street proposed here, is a Private Drive that intersects Mountain Avenue at
a 90-degree angle ("T" intersection). This intersection is separated by more than 125 feet
from the nearest existing intersection - Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street.
3. The only "street" to be created as part of this application, is a Private Drive that
terminates in an approved turn-around. No public streets are proposed as part of this
application.
4. The proposed Private Drive intersects Mountain A venue at a right angle.
5. Applicant has agreed to dedicate an eaSt~ment 12.5 feet wide to accommodate a planting
strip and sidewalk along Mountain Avenue along the subject property frontage. An
exception is sought from the right-of-way dedication standards for Prospect Street; the
approval criteria for street exceptions are addressed hereinbelow. After reviewing the
extent of the existing Right-of-Way, the street design policies and Street Standard
Handbook, and the scope of proposed and current use of the streets, the Council
concludes that they are both adequate in width.
6. No frontage or minimum access roads are required or proposed.
7. Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, all major means of access to this
subdivision will be from existing streets which will be fully improved to City standards
(or based upon the exceptions sought and approved), and which, in the judgJment of the
Director of Public Works, have the capacity to carryall anticipated traffic from the
development.
8. Half streets are not proposed. Applicant proposes to improve Prospect Street, albeit to
standards which are less than typical City requirements but are hereby detennined to be
adequate to serve the limited uses of this portion of Prospect Street. The reduced
standards, as below addressed, are needed to accornmodate structures and landscaping
that now encroach onto the existing right-of-way and which Applicant does not wish to
adversely affect.
9. The cul-de-sac proposed is as short as possible to serve the proposed lots which comply
with City standards, has a length of substantially less than 500 feet and tern1inates in a
turnaround which is of an alternative "hammerhead" design approved by the Planning
Commission (and on revie\v, by the Council). The turnaround design accommodates
turning and reversing direction movements and will permit access and turnaround for
emergency vehicles.
10. Applicant has agreed to stipulate (and the same has been made a condition of approval)
that no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of
existing streets in Ashland.
11. There are no streets adjacent to a railroad right-of-way
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 13 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. Easements.
1. Utility lines. Easements for sewers, water mains, electric lines, or other public utilities shall be dedicated
wherever necessary. The easements shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width.
2. Watercourses. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse such as a drainage way, channel, or
stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming
substantially with the lines of the watercourse, and such further width as will be adequate for the
purpose. Streets or parkways parallel to major watercourses may be required.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: With respect to easeJnents, the City Council concludes as
follows:
1. Applicant has agreed to stipulate (and the same is rnade a condition of approval) to the
dedication of easements for public utilities whenever necessary and the same will be
shown on and dedicated by the Final Subdivision Plat. All existing easements are shown
on the preliminary plat (Record p. A41).
2. Based on the Findings of Fact, the City Council finds that there are no watercourses that
traverse the subdivision.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. Lots.
1. Lots shall meet the requirements of the zone in which the subdivision is located. These minimum standards
shall apply with the following exceptions:
a. In areas that will not be served by a public sewer, minimum lot size shall be increased to conform with
the requirements of the County Health Department and shall take into consideration problems of water
supply and sewer disposal.
b. Minimum lot standard shall not conflict with City zoning standards.
c. Where property is zoned and planned for industrial or business use, other standards may be permitted
at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for
commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and parking
facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated.
2. Access. Each lot shall abut upon a street, other than an alley, for a width of at least forty (40) feet, except in
the case of lots located upon the curved portion of cul-de- sacs or knuckles, or in the case where
topography warrants a narrower width. In no case shall a lot abut upon a street for a width of less than
twenty-five (25) feet.
3. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where essential to provide separation of residential
development from major traffic arteries or adjacent nonresidential activities or to overcome specific
disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least ten (10) feet, across
which there shall be no right of access, may be required along the line of lots abutting such a traffic artery or
other disadvantageous use. Through lots with planting screens shall have a minimum average depth of one
hundred ten (110) feet.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 14 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
4. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall run at right angles to the street upon which
the lot faces.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact and evidence submitted,
the City Council concludes as follows:
1. Based upon the Preliminary Plat (Record p. A41) all proposed lots meet the minimum
standards for the R -1-10 zone.
2. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 abut upon either (or both) Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street for a
width of at least forty feet. Lots 4, 5 and 6 abut the new Private Drive for a width of at
least forty feet.
3. No through lots are being created as part of this subdivision. A through lot is not created
by virtue of frontage upon a City street and the proposed Private Drive.
4. All lots have side lot lines 'which run at right angles to the streets (and Private Drive)
upon which the lots front. 1While Lots 1, 2 and 6 have jogs that are necessitated by an
existing structure and the general size and configuration of the subject propel1y, the side
lot lines, as far as practicable:, run at right angles to the various streets (and Private Drive)
upon which the lots face.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
E. Lot grading. Lot grading shall conform to the following standards unless physical conditions demonstrate the
propriety of other standards.
1. Cut slopes shall not be steeper than one and one-half (1 ~) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically.
2. Fill slopes shall not be steeper than two (2) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically.
3. Cut slopes and fill slopes along side and rear lot lines shall be planted with ground cover and shrubs or
trees, or by some other method approved by the City.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the preliminary grading
plan (Record p. 164-167) and letter from Applicant's civil engineer (Record p. 287 through
288) establish compliance with A.shland's lot grading standards.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
F. Large lot subdivision. In subdividing tracts into large lots which at some future time are likely to be re-
subdivided, the Planning Commission may require that the blocks shall be of a size and shape, be divided
into lots and contain building site restrictions to provide for extension and opening of streets at intervals
which will permit a subsequent division of each parcel into lots of smaller size.
G. Land for public purposes.
1. The Planning Commission may require the reservation for public acquisition, at a cost not to exceed
acreage values in the area prior to subdivision, of appropriate areas within the subdivision for a period
not to exceed one (1) year, pl'Oviding the City knows of an intention on the part of the State Highway
Commission, school district or other public agency to acquire a portion of the area within the proposed
--_._.~--
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 15 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
--~
subdivision for a public purpose, including substantial assurance that positive steps will be taken in the
reasonable future for the acquisition.
2. The Planning Commission may require the dedication of suitable areas for the parks and playgrounds
that will be required for the USE~ of the population which is intended to occupy the subdivision.
Discussion; Conclusions of La,\': The City Council concludes that the proposed subdivision
is not a large lot subdivision under this standard because, based upon zoning, the resulting
lots cannot be further divided. The Council also concludes that the Ashland Conlprehensive
Plan has no provision for the acquisition of land within the boundaries of the subject
property. The Council finds that the existing R-l-1 0 zone requires the largest urban size lots
in Ashland and these will have ample yard space for the use and enjoyment of the future
residents of the subdivision and, therefore, does not require land for parks, playgrounds or
other common open space.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
H. Landscaping. The Planning Commission shall ensure that lot coverage requirements of the zoning district
are met appropriately. If lot disturbance exceeds the percentage allowable, the subdivider shall submit as
part of the Final Plat procedure, a landscaping plan to be approved by the Commission, cmd which will
conform with the letter and intent of the zone district requirements, the slope requirements ill the General
Regulations of this Title, and any other applicable section. Performance shall be assured in accordance with
Section 18.80.050 of this Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council finds that the building envelopes shown
on Applicant's plans may cover more than 40 percent of each lot. However, the Council
concludes that building envelopes do not determine lot coverage; coverage is determined by
actual building plans. Applicant is aware of the 40 percent maximum and has agreed to
stipulate to observing the same, as a condition of approval, that when dwellings are proposed
to be constructed on the individual lots each will comply with this standard. The City will
ensure that the lot coverage standard is observed when it reviews the applications for
building permits, needed to construct dwellings on the lots. The Council finds and concludes
that the lot coverage requiremlents of the R -1-10 zoning district can and will be met
appropriate I y.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. Exceptions - large scale development. The Planning Commission may modify the standards and
requirements of this Chapter if thE~ subdivision plat comprises a complete neighborhood unit, a large scale
shopping center, or a planned lindustrial area. The Planning Commission shall determine that such
modifications are not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and that adequate provision is
made within the development for traffic circulation, open space, and other features that may be required in
the public interest.
J. The Planning Commission may modify the standards and requirements of this Chapter where the applicant
presents innovative design concepts that will assist in providing livable housing at reasonable cost. Such
modifications of standards shall be made only in conformance with the intent of this Chapter, and in
conformance with all applicable portions of this Title.
------~--------_._~
-~_._----_._-------------_._--------"------ ._~
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 16 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based upon the size of the subject property, the City
Council concludes that this is not: a large-scale development and no JTIodification of standards
are proposed under this section of the ALUO. While this application does not contemplate
new affordable housing per se, it does preserve an existing dwelling that is intended by
Applicant for use as an allowed accessory structure, (but not a dwelling unit).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18.80.040 Preliminary plat
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and other supplementary
material as may be required to indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office of the
Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size
at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals OnE~ hundred (100) feet.
C. General information. The following general information shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the name of another
subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposecl tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together
with easements and other important features, such as section lines and corners, and monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated presentable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including loca1ion of all existing structures to remain on the property after
platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
E. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be included on the preliminary piaL
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets, and the relationship of the streets to any
projected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there
is no development plan, as suggested by thE! City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers, for all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
--~
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 17 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
F. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by
the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a Master Plan for the un subdivided portion.
G. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying
the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed
subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be subdivided, a preliminary
grading plan may be required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show existing and
finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan
shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and report from the City
Engineer.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the application package,
as submitted, demonstrates compliance with all of the filing requirements of the City. As to
deed restrictions, there are none per se, although there will be Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CCR's) which will govern the use, enjoyment, upkeep and maintenance of the
individual lots, the Private Drive and maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan.
The City of Ashland will be narned as a beneficiary of such CCR's as the samt~ applies to
the Fire Prevention and Control Plan. The City Council has required Applicant to furnish
CCR's as a condition of approval.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
Purpose of Application: The purpose of this application, which seeks to except certain
municipal street standards, is twofold:
1. Prospect Street: This application seeks to vary the street improvement standards for a
Residential Neighborhood Street for Prospect Street from its intersection 'with South
Mountain A venue west to its terminus. The street standards to be excepted relate to
right-of-way width and the installation of planting strips along the frontage of the subject
property. The standards sought to be varied for Prospect Street are set forth in Table 3 in
the findings of fact (Section IV herein).
By way of explanation, Prospect Street terminates near the northwest corner of the
subject property and cannot be extended due to steep terrain and the existence of
development. Applicant testified that City staff had advised that the City has no plans
which contemplate nor any desire to extend Prospect Street from its present terminus.
From its intersection with South Mountain Avenue:, Prospect serves only four existing
dwellings or parcels. The approval of this subdivision will add three homes \vhich front
Prospect Street (legal access), but only one additional home (Lot 1 of the proposed
subdivision) to actually be served by Prospect Street (functional access).
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 18 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
There are encroachments in the Prospect Street right-of-way by structures and mature
trees that prevent a full utilization of the right-of-way that now exists (without removing
the encroaching structures or trees). The evidence shows that Prospect Street was
partially vacated to accommodate structures placed in its right-of-way. If additional right-
of-way were to be taken frolll the subject property to accommodate greater paving width
and a planting strip (on its wiest end), the result would be the removal of additional trees
near the property's northwest corner in order to provide the planting strip improvements
sought here to be excepted. Additionally, there is steep terrain along the northern portion
of the Prospect Street right-of-way. If the street is required to be vvidened to
accommodate the excepted improvements, the same will require cuts and fills that will
produce an unnecessary environmental impact and the removal of trees existing trees
near the property's northwest corner which are shown on Applicant's plans. See, Record
p.277.
2. South Mountain Avenue: Applicant has requested that the required dedication of 13 feet
be reduced for the section of South Mountain Avenue that fronts upon proposed Lot 7.
Applicant has stated his willingness to install a five-foot sidewalk adjacent 1:0 the curb
along this portion of South Mountain Avenue, but requested an exception to reduce the
size of the sidewalk by one foot and to keep the existing juniper and retaining wall that
currently exist, while installing a 7-foot planting strip along South Mountain Avenue
between of the Private Drive and Prospect Street. Applicant has also sought an
exception, as necessary to permit future frontage in1proveme'nts along South Mountain
Avenue to be within an easement rather than as an in fee dedication of right-of-way.
However, the actual paved irnprovements exist on the extreme west side of the right-of-
way adjoining the subject property. The size of lots that front upon South Mountain
Avenue would be reduced below the 10,000 square ~oot minimums required by zoning if
Applicant is made to dedicate right-of-way for a planting strip and sidewalk. However,
Applicant has expressed his \villingness to supply the planting strip and side\valk if he is
not made to dedicate the land to the city in fee simple, because to do so may
impermissibly reduce the sizc~ of the abutting lots.
3. Private Drive: Applicant testified that he has designed the subdivision to take primary
access from South Mountain Avenue and the proposed Private Drive instead of Prospect
Street. According to Applicant's testimony, the design of the subdivision was warranted
based upon concerns expressed by neighboring property owners along Prospect Street
who believe that Prospect lacks adequate capacity bt~cause of its narrowness. Applicant
also testified that he seeks develop the property in a way that is functional and
aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Eliminating actual access along Prospect
Street for lots 2 and 3 allows for the garages for those two lots to be moved behind the
future dwellings and to access these from the Private Drive. In redesigning the
subdivision in this way, five parcels will take access from the Private Drive (even though
two of these also front upon Prospect Street, and thus have legal access to Prospect
Street). Council interprets Section 18.88.050.A to mean that a unit is "served by" a
private drive only when the unit has no "legal" access to a City street. Legal access is
-~--------
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 19 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
interpreted to include a unit that fronts a City street, thereby giving the unit the right to
access property from a City street. Units that have functional access from a private drive,
but also have legal access to a City street shall not be considered "served" by a private
drive. .
With the above as background, the City Council reaches the following conclusions of law
with respect to the various relevant substantive criteria 'which are prerequisite to approving
exceptions to Ashland's municipal street standards:
Exception Approval Criteria
ALUO 18.88.050(F). Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the
Variance requirements of section 18.1 on and may be 9ranted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if
all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
With respect to street standards for subdivisions, ALUOI8.80.020(B) states that, ""the Street
Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, shall apply to developments
under this Chapter." Therefore, the street standards for subdivisions (and provisions under
which streets may differ from the typical standards) are those set forth for in ALUO
18.88.050 (Street Standards).
A. For the exception to street right-of..way and paving width for Prospect Street.
The Council finds that the application is consistent with the approval standards for an
Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk with the Prospect Street
improvements. Prospect Stn~et is an unimproved, unpaved city street with steep slopes,
trees and structures located in the street right-of-way on the north side of the street. The
natural features and structurles create physical constraints that require the street to be
improved at the southern side of the right-of-way. In addition, there is a large cluster of
trees to be preserved on the south side of the west end of the street (in the northwest
corner of the subject property). As a result, the sidevvalk will be installed at the curbside
for the western 1/3 of the street rather than with a planting strip as required by the
Ashland Street Standards so that the trees on the south side of the street can be preserved.
In the eastern 2/3 of the street, the sidevvalk will be incorporated in the driving surface
and differentiated with paving material to further protect the aforementioned cluster of
trees. The Council finds that the curbside sidewalk will provide adequate pedestrian
facilities given that the street experiences low volumes of vehicular traffic because it is a
dead-end street, is 310 feet in length and \vill serve at total of five properties.
Criterion 1
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
Discussion; Conclusions of La,,,: The City Council concludes as follows:
-----
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 20 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
1. Based on the Preliminary Plat and detail of Prospect Street (Record p. A41 and Record p.
A48) it is clear that existing development to the north prevents Prospect from being
widened to the north, or obtaining additional right-of-way.
2. The area to the north also has a steep topographic drop off that prohibits widening of the
street on its north side.
3. Requiring Applicant to provide additional right-of-\vay on the subject prope:rty (to the
south) will create a street that jogs to the south and serves a total of only five dwellings
(four existing dwellings and one which is proposed as part of this application). There is
no expectation that Prospect Street will ever serve more than five dwellings because the
evidence shows that steep topography prevents the further extension of this street.
Requiring a dedication of property to the City rather than requiring a granting of an
easement, would be disproportionate to the impacts created by this Project.
4. There is a cluster of trees in the north\vest corner of the subject property adjacent to
Prospect Street. If the street is required to be widened, it will require cuts and fills that
Applicant asserts will produce an unnecessary environmental impact, including the
removal of trees on the subj<~ct property which exist along and just outside the existing
Prospect Street right-of-way on the westerly portion subject property' s fi~ontage on
Prospect.
5. If the paving width is required to meet the standard for a neighborhood street an
exception would still be required to reduce or eliminate the required parkrow strip or
sidewalk because of the inability to widen the street because of encroachments in the
right-of-way to the properties to the North.
6. Neighboring property owners on Prospect Street have testified that the road is inadequate
in size and design to be able to handle any additional traffic that may have direct access
onto it. In order to alleviate those concerns a Private Drive \vas designed 'with direct
access onto South Mountain Avenue and the only access to Prospect Street will be for
Lot 1, the driveway for which will be located upon the portion of Prospect which will
have a paving width of 25 fee:t.
7. During the proceeding Appellant Randall Hopkins (Record p. A222-A226) and other
opponents argued that the ALUO does not permit an exception to street standards for
Prospect Street. Opponents argue that the ALUO requires the city to require this
Applicant to dedicate additional right-of-way along Prospect to accommodate off-street
parking consistent with the Ashland Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets
("Street Standards Handbook"). See, Record p. A144-A191.While opponents do not
specify under which approval standard this objection is raised, the Council considers it
here.
As background, Prospect Street is identified as a "Neighborhood Street" in the Ashland's
Transportation Plan. The current Prospect Street right-of-way varies between 43.85 feet
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 21 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
on the eastern two-thirds of the street and narrows to 28.745 feet on its westerly one-
third. This is clearly below the 50 to 57 foot right-of-way standard of the Street Standards
Handbook. Applicant proposed that the Prospect Street right-of-way (approved by the
Planning Commission) remain the same, but that the curb-to-curb width of the easterly
two-thirds of the street be 24 feet wide, while the westerly one-third of the street be 22
feet. The Planning Commission required a 25-foot curb-to-curb width (rather than the
proposed 24-foot width) on the easten1 two-thirds of the street, but otherwise, the
Applicant's proposals for Prospect Street were approved.
Appellant and other opponents opposed the Planning Commission's decision and urged
the Council to require Applicant to dedicate a portion of the subject property to meet the
street standards outlined in the Street Standards Handbook. If required to dedicate
portions of the subject propeI1y, some or all of the lots adjacent to Prospect Street would
no longer meet the minimum lot size required (10,000 square feet) thus effectively
requiring Applicant to submit a different proposal with fewer lots. It appears that this
action would result in a design having one lot fewer than the proposal now before the
Council. During the public hearing, Applicant's attorney argued (Record p. AI7-AI8)
that the municipal street standards are designed to provide flexibility to address situations
where physical features of a project site produce severe constrains and that limited
paving area and narrower streets in this instance will preserve hillside slopes and existing
trees on Applicant's property..
Appellant Hopkins is correct that the Council is empowered by any of several sections of
the ALUO to require Applicant to dE:dicate added right-of-way from its property.
However, the Council concludes that having the authority to require dedication is
different than being required to obtain such a dedication from Applicant.
ALUO 18.80 applies generally to subdivision applications. However, ALUO
18.80.020(B) specifically applies the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88 (Performance
Standards Option) to subdivision development streets. ALUO 18.80 adds specific
requirements for streets in subdivisions, which Appellant Hopkins highlighted in his
written and oral testimony.
Specifically, ALUO 18.80.020(B)( 5) (Existing Streets) states: "[ w ]henev(~r existing
streets adjacent to or within a tract are of inadequate width, additional right-of-way shall
be provided at the time of the subdivision." Appellant Hopkins emphasizes the word
'"shall" but fails to adequately address the term "inadequate." Therefore, if the Council
should find that the width of Prospect Street is inadequate, then it must require additional
right-of-way from Applicant. However, in order to determine \vhether a particular street
is of "inadequate" width and requires additional right-of-way dedication by Applicant,
the Council must apply the Performance Standards Option for Streets in ALUO
18.88.050 (Street Standards) which incorporates by reference the City's Street Standards
Handbook, and specifically, ALUO 18.88.050(F) "rhich allo\vs the Council to except
certain streets from the Handbook standards. The fact that the proposed right-of-way is
below the standards of the Street Standards Handbook, does not necessarily mean that the
-~---~._~---~-~-~--
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 22 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
proposed right-of-way is "inadequate." The Council finds that this is precisely the type of
flexibility contemplated in the Performance Standards Ordinance and Street Standards
Handbook.
Appellant Hopkins argued that ALUO 18.82.020 takes discretion away from the Council
on this issue. Record p. 223. The Council concludes that this is not correct. ALUO
18.82.020, although titled "Street Dedication Required," does not require additional
right-of-way, but gives the Council discretion to decide whether to require additional
right-of-way. The first four provisions of ALUO 18.82.020 apply to future streets.
However, the last provision, (E), applies to existing streets. ALUO 18.82.020(E) states:
"[t]he City may require additional right-of-way on streets which do not meet the Street
Standards of Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Option . . ." Although street
dedication is required in ALUO 18.82.020 for future streets, additional right-of-way
dedication for existing streets is authorized, but not required.
Appellant Hopkins quotes ALUO 18.82.060, apparently for the proposItIon that
additional right-of-way is required in this situation. Record p. 223. However, ALUO
18.82.060 merely establishes the timeframe for when dedication must be cOJnplete. In
other words, ALUO 18.82.060 requires the dedication of future right-of-way for a street
or greenway prior to final action on a subdivision approval, but only if such dedication is
required. If no dedication is required, then ALUO 18.82.060 is inapplicable.
Appellant Hopkins argued that the, "the only exception to this dedication scheme is
provided in 18.82.040." Record p. 223. The Council finds that this is not accurate
because ALUO 18.82.040 is not self limiting. In other words, ALUO 18.82.040 does not
indicate that street dedication may bt~ waived only by ALUO 18.82.040. ALUO
18.82.040 requires the Planning Commission (and Council) to waive street dedication for
the construction of a City stn~et or greenway when it is proven, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission (and Council), that the planned use will not increase in any way
the automobile, pedestrian or bicycle traffic generated in the area. In such a situation, an
owner is still prohibited froITl building in the right-of-way or associated setback areas of
the future street or greenway. ALUO 18.82.040 applies in situations that differ from the
present application and approval. This section applies to situations where the application
will not increase traffic, but for which, the City still has an interest in having a dedicated
(but unimproved) right-of-way for future development. ALUO 18.82.040 is not directly
applicable to this case, wht~re Opponents want additional right-of-way dedicated by
Applicant. If Prospect Street was not a ';'dead end" then it is plausible that this section
would apply, as future development might necessitate additional dedicated right-of-way.
It is true that the proposed application yvill increase traffic on Prospect Street, but this
increase in traffic on an already dedicated right-of-way does not apply to ALUO
18.82.040. In short, ALUO 18.82.040 does not preclude this Council from applying the
Exceptions to the Street Standards of ALUO 18.88.050(F).
Current Street Characteristics:
-----_._~
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 23 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
· The current Prospect Strelet right-of-w'ay (right-of-way) varies between 43.85 feet on
the eastern 2/3 of the stree:t and narro\vs to 28.745 feet on the western 1/3 of Prospect.
This is clearly below the 50-57 foot right-of-way standard of the Handbook.
· Prospect Street is identifiled as a '"Neighborhood Street" in the City's Transportation
Plan.
Proposed Street Improvements:
· Total right-of-way for Prospect Street remains 43.85 feet on the eastern 2/3 of the
street and 28.745 feet on the western 1/3 of Prospect.
· Curb-to-curb width of the eastern 2/3 of the street be 25 feet, while the western 1/3 be
22 feet. The 25-foot curb-to-curb width for the eastern 2/3 of Prospect is clearly
within the standards of the Handbook.
Street Standards:
· According to the Street Standards Handbook, '.Neighborhood Streets" {Record p.
A167, A179, A180 and A181) have the following standards:
· A 50 to 57 foot right-of vvay standarcl where parking is provided on both sides of the
street; a 47 to 51 foot right-of-way standard whc:re parking is provided on only one
side of the street; and
· Curb-to-curb width of 25 to 28 feet for parking on both sides; curb-to-curb width of
22 feet for parking on one side; and
· An 11 to 14 foot lane for parking on both sides; where parking is to be on only one
side of a street, the motor vehicle travel lane is to be 15 feet and the parking lane 7
feet in width.
Exception to the Street Standards:
ALUO 18.88.050.F states:
An Exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and
may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances
are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to the
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
-~-~------- _.~
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 24 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter.
The Council concludes that it has the discretion and flexibility to decide whether
Applicant should be granted an Exception to the street standards found in the Street
Standards Handbook. Here the Council believes that it is entitled to decide this issue
either way because such determination is factual. The Council is not required to grant an
Exception to the street standards on Prospect Street, but, if it chooses to, it may grant
such an Exception providing findings for each criterion in ALUO 18.88.050(F) and the
same are addressed below. The Council further flnds, that because Applicant's tree
protection plan makes the dc:velopment of the site difficult, that this is a de:monstrable
difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Handbook standards. The Council
also concludes that it may consider the tlct that the chief argument against the Planning
Commission's approval of this application is based on the proposition that the Prospect
Street right-of-way is below the standards of the Street Standards Handbook. It is true
that the total right-of-way width, including sidewalks., planting strip, and pavernent is less
than the 50-57 foot standard for Neighborhood Streets with parking on both sides or the
47 to 51 foot standard for parking on only one side. However, the curb-to-{~urb width
does meet the Street Standards Handbook standard of 25 feet on Prospect's easterly two-
thirds and the standard of 22 feet on Prospect's westerly one-third. Therefore, the
Council concludes that it is entirely consistent with the ALUO to determine that the
Prospect Street right-of-way is "adequate", as set forth above. Moreover, the Council
concludes that any requiremc:nt for additional right-of-way would result in the loss of at
least one of the seven proposed parcels. 'While opponents argued that guests of the future
owners of all fronting lots would use Prospect Street, the evidence shows that these lots
each accommodate four or more off-street parking spaces. Additionally, the Street
Standards Handbook favor flexibility and modification of the general standards to
accommodate the actual topography, coverage, traffic and design of the site, apart from
the Exception standards of ALUO 18.88.050(F).
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this
chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site and its proposed use consistent with
Criterion 1.
Criterion 2
2. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that Prospect Street is
presently a gravel surface without paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks or underground storm
drains. Approval of this application requires Applicant to upgrade Prospect Street with
paving, of a width of 22 to 25 feet, the installation of concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalk, and
planting strip (along most of the frontage) and underground storm drainage. While the right-
_.~--------
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 25 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L.aw
Planning Action 2004-105
of-way will continue to be less than municipal standards for Neighborhood Streets, the City
Council concludes that the required improvements will result in superior transportation
facilities to that which now exists. Connectlvity will be neither enhanced nor reduced as a
result of this application. While some opponents argued that Prospect is inadequate now and
would remain inadequate or even worsened as a result of the required improvements, the
Council finds to the contrary. The surface improvements with paving, curbs, pedestrian
facilities and turnaround will be superior in virtually all respects. Although there was
testimony that the existing travel surface on the westerly one-third of Prospect is now 23 feet,
the Council concludes that the existing travel surface is undefined (without curbs) and is at
best only an approximate measurement. The Council further concludes that the curbed and
paved 22 foot travel surface in this area \vill have superior functionality and conditions
attached to this approval will ensure that off-street parking will be safely accommodated and
provide access to all properties by emergency vehicles. 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 2.
Criterion 3
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
Discussion; Conclusions of La,,': From Applicant's plans and the balance struck by the City
Council in its consideration of the appropriate improvements to Prospect Street the City
Council concludes that Applicant has proposed and the City Council has approved the
minimum variance necessary to alleviate the Idifficulties \vhich are set forth in the Findings of
Fact in Section IV herein. Therefore, the Council concludes that the application is consistent
with Criterion 3.
Criterion 4
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The purpose and intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter is set forth in ALUO 18.88.010 which provides:
"The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible
under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity
and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to tht:ir greatest advantage, providf: a quality of
life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be
aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the
natural environment and neighborhood."
The City Council concludes that this variance relief is consistent with the stated Purpose and
Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the following reasons:
1. The intent of "this chapter" is to allow for more flexible design than is permissible under
the conventional zoning codes. Applicant here has sought a more flexible design for
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 26 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Prospect Street that still provides adequate pedestrian and vehicular transportation. The
greater flexibility will result in paving and other improvements to a street that now exists
as a gravel road and will result in not removing trees near the property's north\vest corner
(which would otherwise have to be removed to accOJnmodate a street constructed to full
City standards). Lastly, the flexibility will result in a design that eliminates two
otherwise-required access driveways fron1 Prospect Street and will result in an improved
street that will benefit the neighborhood, while still providing for adequate public
transportati on.
2. The variance with respect to energy efficiency, will produce no consequence, positive or
negative.
3. With respect to architectural creatIvIty, the variance does not involve buildings and,
therefore, does not affect architectural creativity either positively or negatively.,
4. With respect to the use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage,
this variance will result in an ability to preserve existing trees located near the property's
northwest corner.
5. Regarding the provision of a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in
developments built under the standard zoning codes, this variance, by enabling the
preservation of existing trees (located near the property's northwest corner), vvill in turn,
utilize and preserve existing natural features to their greatest advantage. It will also
permit the improvement of Prospect Street to the functional standards of the ALUO and
Street Standards Handbook. The same 'would not be possible if this project were built
using the typical standards of the city.
Appellant Hopkins argues at Record p. A228 that the variance will produce a lower
quality of life because the illlprovements will not solve parking problems that now exist
and because this subdivision will place, "massively added demands on the street." The
Council finds that although there will be some additional demands for parking, such
demand is limited to only onl~ lot (Lot 1 at the easterly end of Project). All other lots that
front upon Prospect will take actual access from the private drive and these lots each
accommodate four off-street parking spaces. Moreover, the required improvements to
Prospect will enhance its function with respect to travel, parking and turnaround
maneuvenng.
6. The Council also disagrees 'Nith Appellant Hopkins that the approved improvements to
Prospect would not be aesthetically pleasing. Record p. A228. By preserving existing
trees (located near the property's northwest corner) the project will be aesthetically
pleasing. Lots 2 and 3, by taking access off the Private Drive rather than Prospect Street,
will produce a more aesthetically pleasing streetsc:ape along Prospect by eliminating
driveways and allowing landscaping in their place and/or the preservation of existing
mature trees.
-~-----~_..~----~~
~--.-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 27 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L.aw
Planning Action 2004-105
7. Without the variance relief sought by Applicant, the subdivision would loose at least one
of the proposed lots (which are of the largest size pennitted in Ashland) and would result
in reduced land use efficiency because then only six (or fewer) rather than the
permissible seven lots could be provided and this would result in less not greater land use
efficiency.
8. This variance will reduce the impact of development on the natural environment by
preserving existing trees (located near the property's northwest corner). The variance
will also reduce the impact of this development on the neighborhood by permitting a
substantial upgrading of Prospect Street from its present condition to one 1Nhich will
include paving, concrete curbs, gutters~ sidewalks, underground storm drainage and
planting strips (along a portion of the Prospect frontage). Despite Appellant Hopkins'
objections at Record p. A229, impacts upon both the natural environment and
neighborhood will be reduced by the substantial irnprovements required for Prospect
which are to be implemented in a way that avoids cuts into the steep en1bankment
adjacent to the south Prospect right-of-\vay and which would unavoidably rcquired the
removal of existing mature trees that will serve to screen the new subdivision homes
from existing homes in the Prospect neighborhood.
9. 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 4 as to the
relief sought along the Prospect Street frontage and for the exception to allow more than
three parcels (five are proposed) to access a Private Drive but not for the relief sought
along South Mountain Street.
B. For the exception to street right-of-v\ray for South Mountain Avenue adjacent to
proposed Lot 7 which would permit a sidewalk against the curb on land that
would be dedicated and without a plalnting strip (other than the existin'9 junipers
which are behind the sidewalk, and, Along Lot 1 north of the Private Drive, to
locate the 7-foot planting strip and 5-foot sidewalk within an easement conveyed
to the City for public use.
Criterion 1
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan as
pertains to Lot 7 along South Mountain Avenue (Record p. 277) Applicant argued that there
are existing mature juniper plantings and a retaining wall located approximately :5 feet from
the back of the curb of South Mountain A'venue. Hovvever, neither the wall nor junipers
provide sufficient reason not to require the construction of pedestrian and planting strip
improvements consistent with Inunicipal standards. For this reason, the Council concludes
that there is no demonstrable difficulty in nLeeting the specific requirements of this chapter
due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Therefore,
compliance with this approval criterion cannot be met and it is denied.
--_._-~~
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 28 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Some opponents argued that not only must the Council require planting strip and sidewalk
improvements on South Mountain but the same must occur within the public right-of-way,
which would require the dedication of land along Lot 7 and other portions of South Mountain
along the property frontage. While it is unclear under which approval criterion Opponents
raise these objections but the Council considers them here. Opponents also argue that if a
dedication of right-of-way is required, the size of Lots 1 and 7 will be reduced below the
10,000 square foot minimum lot size standard of the zone and necessitate denial of the
subdivision application. Applicant's attorney argued that nothing in the ALUO requires the
in fee dedication of land for right-of-way and that the Council is entitled to accept, in lieu
thereof, the dedication of an easement to be used for public pedestrian access and/or to
accommodate planting strips. Staff testimony identified several prior and current land use
approvals utilizing pedestrian t~asements and / or easements for the creation of street
improvements (but not driving surface), sinlilar to the easements required as conditions of
this approval. In this instance, the Council concludes that right-of-way of South Mountain
Avenue is adequate. The Council concludes that this is true even though the existing street
improvements are located along the westerly-most side of the existing right-of-way and
therefore require any new planting strip and sidewalk improvements to extend beyond the
existing right-of-way and onto Applicant's property. To accommodate sidewalks and
planting strips along South Mountain Avenue, its is necessary to require either the dedication
of land for right-of-way (and the improvements themselves) or to require the dedication of an
easement (and the improvements themselves). The City Council finds that it has the
authority and discretion to accept the applicant's offer to impose a condition which requires
the granting of a perpetual public pedestrian and utility easement for the South Mountain
Avenue improvements.
Criterion 2
2. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the exception to
eliminate the planting strip fronting Lot 7 would not result in an equal transportation
facilities and connectivity because the planting strip and sidewalk would then exist in reverse
locations. The Council believes and concludes that the reason for separating side'walks from
travel/parking surfaces with the use of planting strips is to create a more pedestrian friendly
environment that will buffer pedestrians from vehicular traffic and the same would be
compromised if this application 'Nere approved. For this reason, the application (v,rith respect
to the improvements along Lot 7) is concluded to be inconsistent with the requirements of
Criterion 2. However, the Council also concludes that the portion of the application which
seeks relief sufficient to permit planting strip and sidewalk improvements to be within a
dedicated public pedestrian and utility easernent (rather than requiring a land dedication for
right-of-way where the existing South Mountain Avenue right-of-way width is adequate) is
appropriate. Moreover, the Council concludes that whether the planting strip and sidewalk
improvements are within dedicated street right-of-way or within a dedicated easement will
not affect, in any way, the functionality of the required improvements. Therefore, the
----~,-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 29 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Council concludes, as to the easement dedication versus the in-fee land dedication, that there
will be no difference in either transportation facilities or connectivity and the same will be
equal in all functional respects.
Criterion 3
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Because the City Council concluded above that it cannot
approve the variance which would permit transposition of sidewalk and planting strip
improvements along Lot 7, the Council declines to address this matter further under Criterion
3. As to the relief sought to pemlit sidewalk and planting strip improvements in an easement
to be dedicated (rather than within dedicated land for right-of-way expansion), the Council
concludes that the balance struck by the Council in its consideration of the appropriate
improvements to South Mountain A venue, the Council concludes that Applicant has
proposed and the City Council has approved the minimuln variance necessary to alleviate the
difficulties which are set forth in the Findings of Fact in Section IV herein. Th(:refore, the
Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 3.
Criterion 4
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The purpose and intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter is set forth in ALUO 18.88.010 which provides:
"The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is
permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency,
architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to ltheir greatest
advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under
the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce
the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood."
The City Council concludes that this variance relief is consistent with the stated Purpose and
Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the following reasons:
1. Again, because the City Council concluded above that it cannot approve the variance
which would permit transposition of sidewalk and planting strip improven1ents along
Lot 7, the Council declines to address this matter further under Criterion 4. To the
extent that the requirement that improvements be made within a granted easement
must be addressed under this standard, the Council specifically addresses that
condition and the further application of this standard below.
2. The intent of "this chapter" is to allow for more flexible design than is permissible
under the conventional zoning codes. Applicant here has sought a more flexible
street design that still provides adequate pedestrian and vehicular transportation albeit
within a dedicated public pedestrian and utility easement (rather that within dedicated
-~-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 30 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
land for right-of-way width expansion). The greater flexibility will result the same
improvements as would be otherwise require if the improvements were within
dedicated street right-of-way.
3. The variance with respect to energy efficiency, will produce no consequence, positive
or negative.
4. With respect to architectural creativity, the variance does not involve bui]ldings and,
therefore, does not affect architectural creativity either positively or negatively.
5. Regarding the provision of a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in
developments built under the standard zoning codes, this variance is concluded to
result in improvements that will be functionally equivalent in all respects to the same
improvements if located within a dedicated street right-of-way (rather than within a
dedicated pedestrian/utility easement).
6. The Council concludes that the improvements (within an easement rather than within
dedicated right-of-way) \\Till be aesthetically indistinguishable.
7. Without the variance relief sought by Applicant, the subdivision would loose at least
one of the proposed lots (which are of the largest size permitted in Ashland) and
would result in reduced land use efficiency because then only six (or fe\ver) rather
than the permissible seven lots could be provided and this would result in less not
greater land use efficiency.
8. With respect to the impacts on the natural environment and neighborhood, the
Council concludes that this variance will produce no different impacts vvhether the
needed planting strip and sidewalk improvements are placed within a dedicated
pedestrian/utility easement or within land dedicated for right-of-way expansion.
9. 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 4 as to
the relief sought along South Mountain Avenue to permit the planting strip and
sidewalk improvements to be placed within a dedicated pedestrian/utility easement
instead of on land that would be dedicated for right-of-way expansion.
C. TREE PRESERVATION, PROTECTION AND REMOVAL
Purpose of Application: Portions of the subject property (primarily the westerly portion) are
heavily wooded. Any development of this property will require the removal of trees. There
are 62 trees on the property which have a diameter (dbh) of six inches or greater, 19 of which
are proposed to be removed. As established in the findings of fact and evidence submitted
by Applicant, earlier project designs required the removal of substantially greater numbers of
-----.-----
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 31 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
trees than now proposed. Trees to be removed, will be removed at the time of excavation
and improvement for the private road, prior to final plat approval.
Tree Removal Pelimit Approval Criteria
ALUO 18.61.080(8) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the followin~r
Criterion 1
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use
Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for
accurate verification of the permit application; and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The evidence shows that portions of this property are
wooded. There are 62 trees on the property which have a diameter (dbh) of six inches or
greater and 19 of these are proposed to be reInoved. The trees to be removed and those to be
preserved are inventoried and shown Record p. A43.
A Tree Ren10val Pennit is required to remove two trees because the trees are greater than 18
inches dian1eter at breast height I( dbh) and are located on the vacant parcel (3600'1. The two
trees include an 18 inch dbh pine on proposed Lot 3 and a 24 inch dbh pine on proposed Lot
5. The trees are centrally located in the building envelopes of the proposed lots, and
developInent of Lots 3 and 5 is likely not feasible \vithout removal of the pines.
Only trees located upon existing Tax Lot 3600 (the westerly most existing tax lot) is subject
to the provisions of ALUO Chapter 18.61 because ALUO 18.61.035(B) exempts the
following activities from the requirement for tree removal permits:
"8. Removal of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single family detached
dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise regulated by the Physical and
Environmental Constraints ordinance (18.62).
Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are both in a single family residential zone (R-I-10) and are
occupied by single family detached dwellings (both of which are to be preserved). The
Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (ALUO 18.62) regulates the subject
property only with respect to the developrnent standards for Wildfire Lands pursuant to
ALUO 18.62.090 which does not restrict the removal of trees when for the purpose of fire
safety.
The strategies for tree prest~rvation are set forth in Record p. A43 (the Tree
Protection/Removal Plan) and Record p. A24 through A40 (Tree Protection/ReInoval Plan
Narrative) both prepared by Applicant's expert landscape architect, Galbraith & Associates,
Inc. The evidence shows that earlier project designs exa]nined by Applicant necessitated the
removal of substantially greater numbers of trees (and substantial cuts and fills). Applicant
acquired the parcel now intended to be Lot 7, to enable the access road for the subdivision to
be placed where now proposed; without this parcel, the road was required to traverse the
westerly portion of the property - the portion of the property most heavily wooded - and
-~_._--
-~----_._._--_..._--
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 32 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
in doing so, necessitated the removal of a substantially greater number of trees than is in the
proposal now before the City Council. More()ver, building envelopes have been adjusted to
reduce tree removal to the greatest extent practical, while still providing reasonable
flexibility for future home design and siting. Three of the trees to be preserved, 32, 52 and
59, have driplines or tree protection zones that extend into the Private Drive. For these,
special construction requirements and root vents are specified to help ensure tree health and
survival. See, Record p. A24 through A40. The root vents will be installed in the private
roadway to help maintain a healthy root system. Applicant has agreed to stipulate to carrying
out the tree protection measures in the plans at Record p. A43 and A24 through A40,
provided there is some flexibility in carrying ()ut these requirements.
The City Council is aware that adjustments in design often are required once final
engineering is completed and sometimes after construction has commenced. The stipulation
offered by Applicant seeks to bind it to the Galbraith tree protection plans while according a
degree of flexibility that the City Council finds is reasonable.
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 1 because:
1. Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt frOJill the requirement to obtain a special permit to
remove trees.
2. Even if Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 were not exempt from this criterion, the ALUO contains
many design and development standards which govern matters such as lot size, lot
configuration, lot frontage, lot COVt;~rage, building setbacks, off-street parking
requirements and requirements for streets and access. These regulations dictate in large
part the design of any development. The preservation of regulated trees relat(~s to and is
balanced by the need to provide reasonable buildable areas to supply housing
commensurate with the subject R-I-10 zone. While adjustments to these plans are
possible to preserve a particular tree, the adjustment will often require the removal of
another. Based upon the evidence at Record p. A42 through A47 and A24 through A40,
the City Council concludes that the trees proposed for removal on existing Tax Lot 3600
are required in order to permit the apP1lication to be consistent with other applicable
ALUO requirements and standards.
3. The removal of trees on Tax Lot 36010 is required: 1) to be consistent with other
applicable ALUO requirements and standards, and 2) to comply with substantive
provisions of ALUO 18.62.090.
Criterion 2
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
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 33 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1, the City Council concludes that Tax
Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt from this criterion by virtue of these being existing lots
occupied by single family dwellings. The trees to be preserved are grouped in four clusters
situated primarily on the western portion of the subject property. The two trees requiring a
Tree Removal Permit are situated in the center of the building envelopes for Lots 3 and 5,
and will be replaced with a structure. The use of clusters for tree preservation allows the
trees to protect adjacent trees as well as maintains erosion control, soil stability, flow of
surface waters and existing windbreaks. For Tax Lot 3600 (and Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 if
this criterion is applicable), based upon Re(~ord p. A24 through A40 and the professional
opinion of Applicant's expert landscape architect, the City Council concludes that removal of
the trees as proposed in this subdivision, 'Nill not have a significant negative impact on
erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks. Therefore, the Cornmission concludes that this application is consistent with
Criterion 2.
Criterion 3
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.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1 and 2, the City Council concludes
that Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt frOJll1 this criterion by virtue of these being existing
lots occupied by single family dwellings. There are numerous trees throughout the site
including pines, cedars, oaks, big leaf maple, madrone and fruit trees. The two trees
requiring a Tree Removal Permit are an 18 inch dbh pine and a 24 inch dbh pine. Since the
development will preserve 43 of the trees on site with the majority being pines, the removal
of the pines will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies
and species diversity with 200 feet of the subject property. For Tax Lot 3600 (and Tax Lots
3400 and 3500 if this criterion is applicable), based upon Record p. A24 through Pl40 and the
professional opinion of Applicant's expert landscape architect, the City Council concludes
that removal of the trees as proposed in this subdivision~ will not have a significant negative
impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. Therefore, the Council concludes that this application is consistent with
Criterion 3.
Criterion 4
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 shi:!1I be a condition of approval of the permit.
The City shall grant an exception to this critE~rion when alternatives to the tree removell have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the
alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
-~--_._~~~._~-------_._~--~-~~-,.~----~.-
-----_.~~--
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 34 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Discussion~ Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1. the City Council concludes that Tax Lots 3400 and
3500 are exempt from this criterion by virtue of these being existing lots occupied by single fami ly dwellings.
The application includes a n1itigation plan to replace the t\VO trees to be removed.
For Tax Lot 3600 (and Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 if this criterion is applicable), Applicant has
agreed to stipulate to the mitigation of trees in any of the ways provided in AMC 18.61.084.
The City Council concludes that suitable nlitigation can and will be provided based upon
Applicant's stipulate which has been made a condition of approval. Therefore, the City
Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 4.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tree Protection Plan Approval Criteria
ALUO 18.61.200 TREE PROTECTION
Criterion 5
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the :Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a
property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which
clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be dI'awn to scale
and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other
utility lines/facilities and easements;
d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches;
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all
trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in
this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing,
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 35 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
------
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 feBt 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 Stclff Advisor for
the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping
or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles.
6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints,
thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris,
or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection
zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the plans at Record p.
A43 and in Record p. A24 through A40, demonstrate compliance with Ashland's tree
protection requirements as set forth in ALUO 18.61.200 -- Criterion 5.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. WILDFIRE LANDS
Purpose of Application: The subject property is covered by Wildfire Lands on Ashland's
Physical and Environmental Constraints map. Therefore, subdivision of the property is
subject to the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090 (Development Standards for Wildfire
Lands). The Wildfire Lands development standards in ALUO 18.62.090 are addressed as
follows:
Wildfire Lands Approval Criteria
18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands
Criterion 1
A. Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or Partitions.
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be required with the submission of any applcation for an
outline plan approval of a Performance Standards Development, preliminary plat of a subdivision, or
application to partition land which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard areas.
~~--------_._--
---_._---"---
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 36 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to the Fire Chief within 3 days of
the receipt of a completed application. The Fire Chief shall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan,
and submit a written report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days before the scheduled hearing. The
Fire Chiefs report shall be a part of the record of the Planning Action.
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the same scale as the development plans, shall
include the following items:
a. An analysis of the fire hazards on the site from wildfire, as influenced by existing vegetation and
topography.
b. A map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased vegetation.
c. A map of the areas that are to be thinnecl to reduce the interlocking canopy of trees.
d. A tree management plan showing the location of all trees that are to be preserved and removed on
each lot. In the case of heavily forested j:)arcels, only trees scheduled for removal shall be shown.
e. The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks that are required to be installed around each
structure, as required by 18.62.090 B.
f. Roads and driveways sufficient for ernergency vehicle access and fire suppression activities,
including the slope of all roads and drive\Nays within the Wildfire Lands area.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to the vanous
subparts of Criterion 1:
1. Applicant has supplied a Fire Prevention and Control Plan with the submission of these
applications, one of which is for a preliminary plat of a subdivision, within a Wildfire
Hazard area pursuant to the Wildfire Lands designation on Ashland's Physical and
Environmental Constraints n1ap.
2. The provisions of subpart 2 of Criterion 1 are procedural matters which imply no burden
upon any Applicant seeking approval under this ALUO.
3. Applicant's Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Record p. A46), Tree Protection and
Removal Plan and Narrative (Record p. A43 and A24 through A40) properly and In
detail cover the requirements of subpart 3 of Criterion 1.
4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the matters covered in Criterion 1 are procedural and have been observed
by Applicant in these applications.
Criterion 2
4. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan when,
in addition to the findings required by this chapter, the additional finding is made that the wildfire
hazards present on the property have been n~duced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the need to
preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and
aesthetics.
-_...~---
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 37 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Criterion 3
5. The hearing authority may require, through the imposition of conditions attached to the approval, the
following requirements as deemed appropriate for the development of the property:
a. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a formal plan for such thinning.
b. Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load.
c. Removal of all dead and dying trees.
d. Relocation of structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the chances of
successful fire suppression.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall b,e implemented during the public improvements required of
a subdivision or Performance Standards Development, and shall be considered part of the subdivider's
obligations for land development. The Plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance o.f any building
permit for structures to be located on lots created by partitions and for subdivisions or Performance
Standards developments not requiring public improvements. The Fire Chief, or designee, shall inspect
and approve the implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be
considered fully implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff Advisor that the
Plan was completed as approved by the hearing authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for the maintenance of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the
development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of such covenants, restrictions,
and conditions.
8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property in
accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
1. Regarding subpart 5 of Criterion 3, the City Council concludes that special conditions are
not required beyond the Fire Prevention and Control Plan as proposed by Applicant and
made a condition of this approval and the provisions for maintenance of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan as contained in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CCR's) which are also required as a condition of approval.
2. Regarding subparts 6 and 7 of Criterion 3, the City Council concludes that Applicant has
agreed to stipulate to the various matters contained therein. Applicant's stipulations are
in Section VI hereinbelow.
3. Regarding subpart 8 of Criterion 3, the City Council concludes that the proposed lots are
created by subdivision not by partitions, therefore, subpart 8 is inapplicable.
4. 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 3.
Criterion 4
B. Requirements for construction of all structures.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 38 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel
break" as defined below.
2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which lis free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-
burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation.
Where necessary for erosion control or ae~,thetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-
burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground of all native
vegetation. "Fuel Breaks" may include structures. and shall not limit distance between structures and
residences beyond that required by other sections of this title.
3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of
30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is less, in all directions around structures, excluding fences,
on the property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in
excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in slope over
10%. Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel
breaks.
4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a
minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under
the control of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce
fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control.
5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as
determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire
Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall be done under approval
of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-
product material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the above provisions of Criterion 4
have been incorporated into the plan at Record p. A46, and can and will be incorporated into
the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR' s) as the same will be furnished for review
and approval as part of the final plat for this subdivision. Based thereupon, the City Council
concludes that the application is or can and \Nill be consistent will all of the requirements of
Criterion 4.
Objections Not EI'sewhere Considered
During the proceeding certain objections were raised by Appellant Hopkins and other
opponents which where not characterized to any particular approval criterion. The Council
considers these objections below.:
1. Objection: The City Council must deduct the paved drive portions of the private
way from the lot area of the lots with paved access. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p.
A232-A234)
Conclusions of Law: Appellant Hopkins argued that the City Council should interpret the
definition of "lot area" as found in ALUO 18.08.360 to mean that the paved private drive
portion of the lot must be deducted from the "lot area" of the subject property. Applicant's
~~ -------.-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 39 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
attorney, Alan Harper argued that the ALUO definition of "lot area" is ambiguous and does
not support Mr. Hopkins' argument that th(.~ paved portions of the private drive must be
deducted from the "lot area."
Relevant Code Standards and Criteria:
"Private drives" are permitted under ALUO 18.88 --Performance Options Standards."
ALUO 18.88.050(A) states that: --[a] private drive is a road in private ownership, not
dedicated to the public, which serves three or less units." ALUO 18.08.360 defines "lot area"
as ""[t]he total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot, said area to be exclusive of street
right-of-way." The Council concludes that there is no basis for determining that the private
drive portion should be (or even can be) deducted from the definition of --lot area." --Street"
is a defined term that includes only public rights-of-way; private drives are not considered
--streets." See, ALUO 18.08.670. Appellant l-lopkins attempted to support the argument that
the private drive access should be deducted from the lot area by citing to a February 25,
2003, letter from the city staff in regard to an earlier application which stated that, --... the
Planning Commission could make the interpretation that the flag drive area is the actual
physical location where the drive is proposed and deduct this area from the lot.'~ However,
this letter was discussing a different planning action than the one proposed here, which had
entirely different factual lot dimensions. Furthermore, flag lots and flag driveways are
governed by the Partitions portion of the code, in ALUO 18.76, which is inapplicable to this
subdivision application. The City Council concludes that there are no provisions in the
ALUO that require or allow for deduction of a private drive from the lot area of a parcel.
While the Council believes it may have the authority to interpret --lot area" to exclude private
drives it declines to do so.
2. Objection: Prospect will provide inadequate access to the Reid/Sigetich property
which is located at the terminus of Prospect and the street's inadequa(:y is made
worse by people who violate no parking restrictions on the westerly <<~nd of the
street. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p. A.234-A235)
Conclusions of Law: The evidence shows that the westerly end of Prospect Street is
sufficiently narrow so as not to provide ideal access for emergency vehicles. Evidence in the
form of testimony for an Ashland Fire Department representative also shows that emergency
vehicles can gain access to this parcel, although it may require some emergency vehicles to
back out. The Council concludes that the configuration of Prospect Street, while not ideal, is
not of Applicant's making. Moreover, the iJmprovements offered by Applicant and required
by conditions attached to this approval \\Till make significant enhancements within the
existing right-of-way while not removing additional trees on the property or requiring
environmentally deleterious cuts into the hillside, the toe of which exists along the south
boundary of the Prospect Street right-of-way.
As to people disregarding the no parking restrictions which now exist along the ""'esterly end
of Prospect Street, the Council concludes that the willful violation of parking (or any laws)
_._------,._-_._~------~-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 40 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
provides an insufficient reason to deny this application. Additionally, the enforcement of
municipal laws often occurs on a complaint basis and the Council anticipates that with
complaints that this issues will ultimately be resolved.
3. Objection: A security bond should be required to enforce Applicant's tree
protection plans. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p. A235-A236)
Conclusions of Law: ALUO 18.61.250 governs tree protection bonds, and states:
"The City may require the permittee to post with the City a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined
by the city administrator, ensuring the satisfactory completion and maintenance of the tree protection plan.
Suitable collateral may be in the form of letters of credit, certificates of deposit, cash bond, or bonds issued
by an insurance company legally doing business in the State of Oregon."
The evidence shows that the issue of posting a security bond for the tree protection plan was
raised and discussed at the November 4, 2004 Tree COlnmission meeting. Specifically, this
applicant's history on other projects was raised in a letter from the Appellant Hopkins to the
Tree Commission. After the letter was re~ad by a neighboring property owner, a Tree
Commissioner questioned the applicant on his history of tree protection on projects outside
of this application. Despite a recommendation from the Planning Department staff that the
Tree Commission not consider evidence other than the Inerits of the application now before
them, Applicant chose to respond. In the final recommendations of the Tree Con1mission, a
requirement for a security bond was not included as a recommendation and the Council
further declines to make this a requirement. While the ALUO 18.61.250 clearly gives the
Council authority to require the posting of a bond, the same is a purely discretionary matter.
The Council here has elected not to exercise this discretionary authority.
4. Objection: The Planning Commission proceeding was replete with ex parte
communications, undisclosed potential conflicts of interest and disregard of the
rules of procedure. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p. A236-A238)
Conclusions of Law: Prior to the opening of the public hearing at the November 9, 2004
Planning Commission meeting, Appellant I-Iopkins raised the issue of ex parte contacts by
Planning Commissioner Dave Dotterrer. TV\"0 Commissioners (Dotterrer and John Fields)
declared ex parte contacts that occurred directly after the October 12, 2004 meeting. The
Commission reviewed the declarations and concluded that the Commissioners were not
biased and could participate in the proceedings. The Planning Department staff testified that
it is not aware of, and has not received evidence of any other ex parte communications by
Planning Commissioners, other than the cornments in Appellant's Hopkins brief (Record p.
236-238). The Council concludes from the evidence that any inadvertent ex parte
communications on the part of one or two Planning Commission members were disclosed
and that the necessary opportunity to comment and examine the nature of those contact was
provided at the time of hearing. Moreover., to the extent that there were any ilnproper or
undisclosed ex parte communications between Planning Commissioners and any other party,
that the said improprieties are cured by this de novo proceeding before the City Council.
-~----_.-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 41 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Similarly, at all Council hearings on this matter disclosures were made by Council members
and the opportunity to challenge or inquire into those contacts was afforded to all parties.
5. Objection: In the winter streets in the area become slick with snow and ice and
produce unsafe driving conditions that will be made worse by the traffi(~ from this
development. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p. A220-A221 and others else\.\'here in the
record)
Conclusions of Law: Opponents who raise this issue do not cite to any of the relevant
substantive approval criteria and the Council does not know where it would be entitled to
consider this objection. The Council concludes that such objection is irrelevant because it
does not go to any of the relevant substantive criteria upon which these applications must be
judged.
VI
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS; DECIISION; CONDITIONS; STIPULATIONS
Ultimate Conclusions; Decision
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
ultimately concludes that all of the relevant substantive criteria, prerequisite to approving the
Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Exceptions to Street Standards, and Tree Removal Permit have
been satisfied in full or can and will be satisfied based upon Applicant's approved plans and
the stipulations agreed to and which have been made conditions to these permit approvals
and other conditions imposed by the City Council. Therefore, the City Council orders that
the applications be, and the same hereby an~, approved and made subject to the conditions
of the City Council and the stipulations offered by Applicant and accepted by the City
Council, all as set forth hereinbelow.
More specifically, the City Council herewith takes the following actions on the various
subject land use applications considered and disposed of as Ashland Planning Ac:tion 2004-
105.
1. Subdivision. Application for a Preliminary Plat pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) Chapter 18.80. The application seeks to create seven lots from the 1. 75-acre
subject property, which consists of thrt:e existing lots, two of which are occupied by
dwellings. The future seven lots \-vill be occupied by single-family dwellings. An
existing dwelling will continue to exist but not as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU).
CondliionalApprovaL
2. Conditional Use Permit. Application tDr a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit an
existing single family dwelling on Tax Lot 3500 to continue to exist and operate in the
future as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) pursuant to ALUO 18.20.030.
Withdrawn by Applicant.
--~~--
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 42 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
3. Exceptions to Street Standards:
A. Along Prospect Street, an exception is sought to street right-of-way and paving width
standards, and to eliminate the parkrow between the curb and the side\valk on the
property frontage.
Conditional Approval.
B. Along South Mountain Avenue, an exception is sought to permit a required planting
strip and sidewalk within an easement on the subject property rather than within the
right-of-way of South Mountain Avenue.
Conditional Approval in Part; Denial in Part.
4. Variance to Off-Street Parking. Application seeking variance relief for the purpose of
permitting the two (2) required off-street parking spaces for the ARU to be located on an
adjacent parcel.
Withdrawn by Applicant.
5. Tree Protection/Removal. Application for Tree Removal Permit and related Tree
Protection Plan. The applicant seeks to remove two trees 18 inches dbh and greater on
the vacant parcel. Two of the three existing lots are exempt from the tree removal
standards of ALUO 18.61 (Tree Preservation and Protection) pursuant to ALUO
18.61.035(B). Tree protection/removal on the other existing lot is governed by ALUO
18.61 and ALUO 18.62.090 (Development Standards for Wildfire Lands).
Conditional Approval.
6. Wildfire Lands. Authorization for subdivision under the special standards ",hich apply
to this land which is within the area designated Wildfire Lands on Ashland's Physical &
Environmental Constraints Map.
Conditional Approval.
City Counc:il Conditions
The following conditions are herewith attached to these applications and made a part thereof:
1. That all proposals and stipulations of the Applicant are conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified here.
2. That all easements for sewer, water, electricity, etc., as required by the City of Ashland,
shall be shown on the final survey.
3. That the necessary perpetual public pedestrian and utility easement for the Prospect and
Mountain subdivision sidewalk improvements shall be granted and shown on the final
survey.
~~~---
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 43 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
4. That the Applicant shall consult with the Electric Department before submitting an
Electric Distribution System Plan. This plan shall include load calculations and the
location of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, street
lights, underground installation of existing and proposed lines, and all other necessary
equipment. The electric plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection
Plan in order to minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones. The Tree
Protection Plan shall be revised by the project Landscape Architect accordingly, and
submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final
survey. The Electric Distribution SysteITI Plan must be reviewed and approved by the
Electric Department prior to signature of the final survey.
5. That the water line in Prospect Street shall be upgraded to an eight inch line with the
subdivision infrastructure improvements, and the engineered construction dra'Nings shall
be revised accordingly.
6. 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 signature of the final survey.
7. That a utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey. The utility plan
shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the
development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes
and clean-outs, on-site treatment of storm drainage and catch basins. The utility plan
shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan in order to mJlnimize the
routing of utilities through tree protection zones.
8. That the sidewalk on the south side of Prospect Street shall be a minimum of five feet in
width in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards as required in 18.80.030.A.l. In
addition, west of the turnaround, the sidewalk shall be at the same level as the driving
surface and incorporated into the total curb to curb width of 22 feet. The sidewalk shall
be connected through the turnaround area by providing wheelchair ramps and installation
of the at grade sidewalk in the turnaround. Engineered construction drawings for the
street improvement shall include the increased sidewalk width, standard curbside
sidewalk west of the turnaround, and crossing area, and shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Ashland Engineering and Planning Divisions.
9. That storm drain facilities shall be included in the Prospect Street improvenlents. The
storm drain plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan in order
to minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones. The Tree Protection
Plan shall be revised by the project Landscape Architect accordingly, and submitted for
review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final survey.
Engineered construction drawings for the street improvement shall include the storm
--_._~._---
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 44 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
drain facilities, and shall be submitted for reVIew and approval of the Ashland
Engineering and Planning Divisions.
10. That the use of porous paving material and the construction of the improven1ent above
existing street grade ("raised" pavement) for Prospect Street is not approved, and the
engineered construction drawings shall b~.~ revised accordingly.
11. That the proposed Prospect street improvement east of the turnaround shall be: revised to
increase the curb-to-curb width to 25 b,~et. That the Traffic Safety Commission will
evaluate and recommend one or two-sid(:.:d parking whichever is most appropriate. That
the proposed Prospect street improvement west of the turnaround shall be revised so that
the curb-to-curb width is 22 feet. The engineered drawings shall be revised accordingly.
12. That engineered construction drawings for subdivision infrastructure improvements,
including but not limited to utilities, public street improvements, private drive
improvements, the street improvements shall submitted for review and approval by
Ashland Engineering Division prior to signature of the final survey. Plans to include
profiles and cross sections, indicating cuts and fills, and erosion control and slope
stability methodologies consistent with the standards for Hillside Lands contained in
AMC 18.62.080B, if applicable.
13. Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities, public
street improvements, private drive improvements, and street lights shall be installed or a
bond posted for the full cost of construction prior to signature of the final survey.
14. That the name of the street shall be approved by the City of Ashland and consistent with
the street naming resolution.
15. Access shall be maintained to the existing public utility easement on the western
boundary of the site. The easement shall be included on building permit subrnittals, and
no portion of a structure may intrude into the easement.
16. The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be
noted in the CC&R's. The CC&R's must state that deviations from the plan shall be
considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to
penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code.
17. That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided
prior to signature of the final survey. CC&R's to describe responsibility for the
maintenance of all planting strips and stn~et trees.
18. That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission, with final approval of the
Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Tree Protection and Removal Plan,
Landscaping Plan and Irrigation Plan. The revised tree, landscaping and irrigation plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Staff
- ----_.~-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 45 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Advisor prior to signature of the final survey.
19. Street trees, planting strip landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed or a bond
posted for the full cost of construction prior to signature of the final survey plat.
20. That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applit:d for and
approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved trees on site
and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the notice to proceed with construction
of subdivision improvements. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identifications of
trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing. The tree protection
shall be installed according to the appro\!ed Tree Protection and Removal Plan prior to
any site work or storage of materials.
21. That a system for long-term maintenance of trees identified for protection, and
addressing private drive improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey.
22. That a grading plan shall be submitted for each individual lot with the building permit
submittals. There shall be no grading outside of the approved building envelopes in the
approved tree protection zones (i.e. terracing to create yard area, patios).
23. That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 400/0 of the lot area in accordance with
18.20.040.F. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be
submitted with the building permits.
24. That the front yards for the purposes of setbacks for Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be the yard
adjacent to Prospect Street, and the rear yards shall be adjacent to the private drive.
25. That the development shall receive a 1200C permit from Oregon DEQ prior to site work.
Evidence of the permit shall be submitted with the final engineering for the pro0ect.
26. That a fence shall be installed at the Applicant's expense on the east end of the private
drive turnaround to prevent headlights from shining into adjacent properties. In addition,
a fence shall be installed at the Applicant's expense at the mutual boundaries with 789
South Mountain Avenue and with 1036 Prospect to the maximum allowable height in
accordance with 18.68.010. Fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of a building
permit for Lot 3, 4, 5 or 6.
27. That the South Mountain Avenue improvement shall be revised to include a planting strip
in accordance with Ashland Street Standards.
28. That the street trees at the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street
shall be placed to provide vision clearance.
29. That the proposed Prospect street improvement west of the turnaround shall be improved
--~.._------
~------------
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 46 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
as proposed with on-street parking on one side if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. a vehicle turnaround easement is obtained from the property owners of 1036 Prospect
for use of their driveway for a turnaround area, or it is demonstrated that it is possible for
a vehicle parked on the north side of Prospect on the west end to turnaround and exit out
of Prospect Street in a forward manner, and 2. the Fire Department determines that a
emergency vehicle can negotiate the turn into 1036 Prospect with automobiles parked on
the north side of Prospect on the west end. If the before mentioned conditions are not
satisfied, the Prospect Street improvement shall be constructed with 22 feet of curb-to-
curb width, but on-street parking shall not be permitted west of the turnaround. The
engineered drawings shall be revised accordingly.
Stipulations Offered and Agreed to by Applicant
1. Prospect Street Water Main. Applicant will upgrade the size of the existing 4-inch
water main in Prospect Street to a larger size, consistent with standard engineering
practices and the requirements of the Ashland Water Department.
2. Dwelling Height: No structure will be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2
1/2) stories in height, whichever is less.
3. Lot Coverage: Notwithstanding the size of building envelopes shown Applicant's plans
(See, Record p. A43) the maximum coverage for each lot will not exceed forty (40)
percent.
4. Dedication of Easement and ImproveJlnents on South Mountain Avenue: Applicant
will dedicate a 12.5 feet wide easement along the South Mountain Avenue frontage
between Prospect Street and the Private Drive to accommodate a 7-0 foot planting strip
and 5-0 sidewalk which Applicant will install.
5. Street Name: The name of the proposed private driveway will not duplicatE: or be one
which might be confused with the names of existing streets in Ashland.
6. Easements: Applicant will dedicate easements for public utilities whenever necessary
and the same will be shown on and dedicated by the Final Subdivision Plat.
7. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's): If the City so requests~, Applicant
will provide copies of the intended Cov(.~nants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) for
municipal review and approval as part of the Final Subdivision Plat. The City of Ashland
shall be named as a beneficiary of such CCR's on all matters related to implementation
of the approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan.
8. Lot Landscaping: Portions of all subdivision lots not covered by structures and hard-
surfaced areas for vehicles and pedestrians, will be ornamentally landscaped with living
--~--~,-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 47 of 48
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
landscape materials and mulch and served by underground automatic sprinkler systems.
In particular, cut and fill slopes along sid(.~ and rear lot lines, will be planted with ground
cover and shrubs or trees.
9. Protection for Trees Required by ALU~O 18.61 to be Preserved: Trees on the property
will be preserved in accordance with the Tree Protection and Removal Plan (See, Record
p. A43 and A24 through A40) prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc., provided that
Applicant may seek (and the Staff Advisor may approve) such minor adjustments as may
be needed to accommodate proper engineering and construction so long as such minor
adjustments do not reduce the protections provided under the Tree Preservation and
Protection ordinance of ALUO 18.61.
10. Fire Prevention and Control Plan: The Fire Prevention and Control Plan will be
implemented during construction/installation of the public improvements requilred of this
subdivision and prior to the issuance of any building permit for structures to be located
on the subdivision lots. The Fire Chief will be asked to inspect and approve
implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan and verify that the said plan was
completed as approved by the Planning Commission.
Dated:
I~ 1~(}S-
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
b-Ly\~~~
By: John Morrison
Mayor
-~
_.~-~- ---------.-
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 48 of 48