HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-099 Findings - Mindlin
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF REQUESTS FOR A )
ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1-5 TO R-2 AND )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE )
FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO )
LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY FOR AN )
APPROXIMATELY 1.3 ACRE PARCEL )
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF )
FORDYCE STREET; OUTLINE PLAN AND )
SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 13 UNIT, )
MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISION UNDER THE )
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION; )
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT; AND )
TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, ALL WITHIN )
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Melanie Mindlin I Fordyce Street
Cohousing Community: Applicant
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION; PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Applicant, Melanie Mindlin, together with the Fordyce Street Cohousing Community
(FSCC), filed the following consolidated land use applications with the City of Ashland:
1. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change. Application for
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone change from Single Family
Residential (R-1-5-P) to Low Density Multi-Family (R-2).
2. Site Review / Performance Standards Option. Application for Site: Review,
pursuant to ALVa 18.72, for development within an R-2 zone, contingent on the
rezoning and mapping of the subject property. The Outline Plan proposed under the
Performanc:e Standards options of ALVa 18.88 allows for the creative, innovative
and flexible design of the development.
3. Physical Constraints Permit. Application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit
to allow the development of a 20 foot wide private drive to serve the proposed
development and the placing of a culvert where that drive would impact the area
identified as "land drainage."
4. Tree ProtectionlRemoval. Application for Tree Removal Permit for the removal of
1
three trees over 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (identified as nurnbers 12-
14, Record 94-96) and Tree #16, which is a 4 inch multi trunked Box Elder. Tree
protection/removal is governed by ALUO 18.61.
Following public notice in accordance with law, the Applications were heard by the
Ashland Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") issuing a denial of the
applications on December 14, 2004 with a final order adopted January 11, 2005. Within
the time period specified in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) an appeal of the
Planning Comlnission's decision was timely submitted by the applicant.
Following public notice in accordance with law, the Ashland City Council ("City Council"
or "Council") conducted a public hearing on March 1, 2005 to hear this appeal. The
public hearing was continued to April 5, 2005. Following the conclusion of public
testimony, the record and public hearing were closed. Final deliberation and aC1tion by the
City Council on this matter was continued until April 19, 2005 at which time the Council
voted to approve all of Applications. These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
support the Council's decision in this matter.
II
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
The evidence \vhich was before the City Council is contained in the City's file on this
matter (Planning Action 2004-128) and the record has been assembled and the pages
numbered. Citations herein are to record page number for Planning Action 2004-128.
III
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA
The standards and criteria applicable to the applications enumerated in Section I to be
considered, are in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). The approval criteria and
relevant provisions of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan are outlined below and recited
verbatim in Section V herein, where each is followed by the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the City Council.
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
18.108.060 Type III Procedure
A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure:
1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative
amendments.
2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments.
3. Annexations.
4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions.
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III
procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with thE!
2
comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that:
a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the
Comprehensive Plan; or
b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was
proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or
c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or
d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to
another zoning district, will provide one of the following:
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income;
or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income;
or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income;
or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of media n income;
or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c))
affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complyi ng with
subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be
extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the
affordable housing developer or Deve~opment Corporation prior to commencement of the project; or
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial
zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial! and
industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide one of the followin!r
1 . 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income;
or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income;
or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income;
or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income;
or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c))
affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with
subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be
extended to the area or areas proposed for dedication. Ownership of the land and/or air space shall be
transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the
project.
The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by roundin~J down
fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to
guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years.
Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions.
C. Type III Procedure.
1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be process as follows:
a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at
least 45 days after the submission of the application.
b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section 18.108.080.
c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in 18.108.100.
2. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A. 1 and 2, the Commission shall have the authority
to take such action as is necessary to make the amendments to maps and zones as a result of the decision
without further action from the Council unless the decision is appealed. The decision of the Commission may
be appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.
3
3. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A. 3 and 2, the Commission shall make a report of
its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council
within 45 days of the public hearing.
a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public
hearing as provided in 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in sectiion
18.108.080.
b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application.
B. SITE REVIEW / PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. Alii improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
18.88.030 Procedure for Approval
A. Outline Plan:
4. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland.
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and l:hat the
development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock
outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in
the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the
Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and
that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in
the entire project.
f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
C. PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the
Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the
property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning
Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
D. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation & Protection
4
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Remova!-Staff
Permit shaH demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's
report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
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 aH 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 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 footpl.int 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 mitigate for the removal of each tree grante!d approval
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of appl"Oval 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.
IV
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Counc:il reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this
matter.
1. Description of Project Area. The subject property is identified as 39 IE lOB, tax lot
2600. The subject property is approximately 1.33 acres (55,732 square feelt). Record
57.
2. Property IJocation: The property is within the corporate limits and acknowledged
urban growth boundary of the City of Ashland. The property is located at 545 Fordyce
Street, Ashland, Oregon; on the west side of Fordyce Street, between Orchid Street
and Kirk Lane.
3. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: The Ashland Comprehensive Plan designates the
subject property Single-Family Residential. The property is currently zoned R-1-5.
Record 56.
4. Surrounding Land Uses: Adjacent lands to the north, south and east are developed
with single-family detached dwellings and zoned R 1-5 with a Single Family
5
Residential Comprehensive Map designation. The property immediately to the west is
outside of the city limits and is undeveloped.
5. Project Description: Applicant proposes to divide the property into 13 lots with
additional common area controlled by the FSCC home owner association. Each lot
shall be improved with a residence. The project will take access from Fordyce Street
by way of private driveway, 20 feet in width. The project will have common parking
facilities as identified on the proposed site plan rather than. individual garages,
consistent with the co-housing theme. The common area will include the parking
areas, comlnunity building, common play area and plaza, storage area and community
gardens. The 13 residential units shall be located in six buildings. Record 41.
6. Access: Access will be directly from Fordyce Street, along a private drive with fire
truck turn around at the west end of the project.
7. Topography: The subject property is relatively flat with minimal slope to lthe north.
There is an existing and mapped drainage way extending south to north across the
eastern portion of the property. The applications propose the private drive to cross
this drainage way and a culvert is to be constructed. This impact and preservation of
the drainage way is addressed through the Physical & Environmental Constraint
application herein (18.62.070). Record 88 and 91.
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 90:
Sanitary Sewer
Public Watt~r
Storm Drainage
Streets
Utilities
The subject property is more particularly served by the following public facilities and
servIces:
8.1 Sanitary Sewer: According to City of Ashland Engineering Department, there
are existing sanitary sewer lines in Fordyce Street that are adequate in condition
capacity to support the proposed subdivision.
8.2 Public Water: There is existing water service constructed within Fordyce Street,
which has capacity and availability for the project.
8.3 Storm Drainage: Storm water on site will be controlled through the existing
ditch, directed by the natural topography of the site. The ditch has the capacity to
continue to handle storm water from the subject property and will be enhanced
within the designated buffer zone of the drainage way as well as placed in a
6
culvert ,vhere it passes under the proposed private drive. Record 44, 90-91.
8.4 Streets and Transportation: The property fronts upon and has direct access by
way of Fordyce Street, a city street, owned and maintained by the City of Ashland
which is designated as a "Neighborhood Collector" with an average capacity of
1500-5000 average trips per day. Fordyce Street is fully built out and designed to
accommodate the full build out of all adjacent properties taking access to it.
Access to the individual lots (here proposed to be created) will be by 'way of a
private drive. The proposed private drive will serve the 13 units to be created and
will connect directly to the common parking facilities. No additional public street
is planne~d by the City or necessary for vehicular connectivity because of the close
spacing of Kirk Lane and Orchid Street.
8.5 Police and Fire Protection: Police and fire protection are provided by the City
of Ashland.
8.6 Utilities: Electricity, natural gas, telephone, CATV and internet access are
immediately available to the subject property. Utilities will he placed
underground pursuant to requirements of the ALUO.
9. Trees; Existing Natural Features; Design Process: There are 17 trees on and
adjacent to the property which have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of four inches or
greater, 4 of which are proposed to be removed. The trees to be removed and those to
be preserved are inventoried and shown on the plans at Record 93, 94 and 95-96. The
strategies for tree preservation are set forth in the Tree Protection/Removal Plan
Narrative prepared by Applicant's expert landscape architect, KenCaim Sager
Landscape .Architects Inc. Building envelopes and the construction of in1pervious
surfaces have been adjusted to reduce tree removal to the greatest extent practical,
while still providing reasonable flexibility for building design and siting.
10. Wetlands: According to the City of Ashland Wetland Inventory, there are no
wetlands on the subject property.
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 belo\v and followed by the conclusions of law of the Council:
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
Purpose of Application: The purpose of this application is to divide the subject property
into 13 residential units and accessory common areas, as shown on Applicant's plans.
7
The current zoning and Comprehensive Map designation would not permit the proposed
density or proposed access of Applicant's site design. The consolidated applications
include a zone change / map amendment to change the zoning from R-1-5 to R-2 and the
Comprehensive Map designation from Single Family Residential to Low Density Multi-
Family. Zone change proposals and Map amendments have identical criteria for approval
and will be addressed together, the Council hereby adopts identical conclusions and
findings for both actions as set forth herein.
18.108.060 Type III Procedure
A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure:
1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative
amendments.
2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments.
3. Annexations.
4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions.
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III
procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the
comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that:
a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the
Comprehensive Plan; or
b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was
proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or
c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or
d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to
another zoning district, will provide one of the following:
1 . 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income;
or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income;
or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income;
or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income;
or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c))
affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with
subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be
extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the
affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project; or
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial
zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and
industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide one of the followinu:
1 . 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of medi an income;
or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income;
or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income;
or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income;
or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c))
affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with
subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be
8
extended to the area or areas proposed for dedication. Ownership of the land and/or air space shall be
transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the
project.
The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down
fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to
guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years.
Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact and evidence submitted
by Applicant, the City Council concludes as follows:
1. The Council interprets this criterion as not requiring strict compliance or furtherance
of every single Comprehensive Plan Goal or Policy but that "compliance:" in this
context requires that the project satisfy a three step process to be conducted by the
Council. The Council determines that initially it must identify those Comprehensive
Plan provisions that are relevant to the application; secondly, it will determine if any
one specific provision of the Comprehensive Plan functions as a mandatory criterion
which must be satisfied in order to approve the application; and lastly, each Goal and
Policy must be evaluated in light of the benefits and detriments of the application to
determine if~ when the relevant provisions are balanced, the application complies with
the Comprehensive Plan.
The Council has outlined those provisions of the Plan which it has determined to be
relevant and based on the balancing of those various, and sometimes competing
provisions, of the Comprehensive Plan, as more particularly discussed bdow, the
proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
2. The application demonstrates that the increase in residential zoning density vlill result
in 2 of the 13 units (15%) being provided to buyers or renters at or belo\v 60% of
Median Family Income (MFI) for the Ashland/Medford area, establi:~hed and
annually updated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
City's Community Development Department. See, Additional Material submitted by
Applicant February 16, 2005 (page 3-5 - "FSCC Affordable Housing Program" and
"FSCC Response to Planning Department Staff Report 12/14/04"). By providing
owner occupied housing in this income range there will be housing for individuals
and families that choose to live in this co-housing structure, there will be ne"w options
for members of the community that work in Ashland to live in Ashland. The
applicant will agree to deed restrictions on the lots created by the approved site plan
in order to guarantee compliance with the City's affordable housing prograJn and the
conditions of this approval.
The Council has analyzed the zone change and Comprehensive Map arnendment
applications concurrently; making identical findings for each since each action has
identical criteria. Many provisions of the Comprehensive Plan were discussed and, based
on the advise of the City Attorney, the Council concluded that no one provision of the
Plan is mandatory or independently governs a decision on these applications.
9
The Council concludes that the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan for the purposes of
this individual application is not binding on the Council's future planning action
decisions. The Council's analysis of the Comprehensive Plan for this particular
application is unique to the facts and circumstances of this application and this decision
in no way attempts to set a particular policy for future planning actions.
The Council concludes that the following provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, as
discussed and weighed by the Council, were the most relevant, none operated as
mandatory approval criteria and the Council concluded that the proposal is supported by
and in compliance with the Comprehensive plan (Comprehensive Plan text in bold and
Council conclusions following):
Comprehensive Plan Chapter VI-Housing Goal: Ensure a variety of dwelling types
and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of A.shland's
population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the dty.
Policy VI-I: Given the scarcity and cost of land as a limited resource, cons.~rve land
and reduce the impact of land prices on housing to the maximum extent possible,
using the following techniques:
a) Use the absolute minimum street widths that will accommoda1te traffic
adequately in order to reduce aesthetic impacts and lot coverage by impervious
surfaces. The approved project, with the requested zone change, eliminates the: need for
a narrow city street to serve what could otherwise be several single family residential lots
along either the north or south side of a public street. The project provides for a 20'
private drive access that shares commonly located parking to serve all dweUing units
centrall y.
b) Allow a wide variation in site-built housing types through the use of the
City's Performance Standards ordinance. The use of attached housing, small lots
and common open space shall be used where possible to develop more modt~rate cost
housing and still retain the quality of life consistent with Ashland's character. This
policy is determined to be one of the more relevant policies, reflecting perhaps the best
statement of the city's current crisis in affordable housing and the aspirational direction
of potential solutions. The project creates a shared living arrangement, co-housing but
allows individual dwelling ownership. The housing will be a mix of attached units and
unique lots with a large portion of the lot to be devoted to common open space to be
shared by the various owners of the association. The housing types will bt~ oriented
generally around a common building and open spaces and will not have garages but will
utilize shared parking and provide only pedestrian access directly to most units. The
innovative design of units and shared ownership of significant common elements in
addition to open space make this consistent with Ashland's innovative character. The
project has also been proposed to have long term deed restrictions that will make it
affordable on an association wide basis reacting to the city's need for substantially more
median income accessible home purchasing opportunities.
c) Consistent with policies relating to growth form, City policy should
encourage development of vacant available lots within the urban art~a, while
providing sufficient new land to avoid an undue increase in land prices. This shall
10
be accomplished with specific annexation policies. While this is not an annexation
application, this zone change / Map amendment is encouraging the development of
vacant land working to, in part, meet the city's need for affordable housing without
having to expand its current UGB.
d) Zone lands in the single-family designation consistent ~vith the
surrounding neighborhood if the area is mostly developed. Generally, lands south
of Siskiyou Boulevard-North Main should be R-1-7.5 and R-I-IO, and lands south of
the Boulevard should be R-1-5. The Council determined that this policy did not
establish a mandatory criterion that would govern this application. The land sUIrounding
the subject property is zoned and fully developed as R-1-5 single family residential. The
subject property has an initial zoning ofR-1-5 but is proposed under this application to be
rezoned to R-2, Low Density Multi-Family residential. Since the proposal is to modify
the zoning to Multi-Family (R-2) other policies best address the concern of mixing
different zoning designations. While the Planning Commission focused on this Policy
and Policy VI-2(a), the Council determines that the proposal is consistent with this policy
generally and that the Planning Commission and most parties testifying before Council
addressed the elements and language of Policy VI-2(a) (discussed immediately below).
Policy VI-2: Using the following techniques protect existing neighborhoods from
incompatible development and encourage upgrading:
a) Do not allow deterioration of residential areas by incompatible uses and
developments. Where such uses are planned for, clear findings of intent
shall be made in advance of the area designation. Such findings ~;hall give
a clear rationale, explaining the relationship of the area to housing needs,
transportation, open space, and any other pertinent Plan topics. Mixed
uses often create a more interesting and exciting urban environJnent and
should be considered as a development option wherever they will not
disrupt an existing residential area.
b) Prevent inconsistent and disruptive designs in residential areas through
use of a limited design review concept, in addition to using Historic
Commission review as part of the site review, conditional use permit, or
variance process.
c) Develop programs and efforts for rehabilitation and presenTation or
existing neighborhoods, and prevent development, which is incompatible
and destructive.
A significant amount of testimony, except that of the applicant and various City staff,
were directed at this Policy. The Council concludes that a zone change that allows more
residential units than was previously allowed under the prior zoning classification is not
necessarily incompatible. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular
application, a proposal that would allow increased density mayor may not be
incompatible. The Council concludes that, based on the facts of this particular
development proposal accompanying the request for a zone change and Comprehensive
Plan Map change, this particular proposal is not incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods"
The Council hereby determines that the proposed use and developm1ent is not
11
incompatible with adjacent residential areas and, will therefore, not cause the
deterioration of those residential areas. The Council adopts the following findings of
intent explaining the relationship between this specific proposal, upon which the zone
change and Map amendment are conditioned, and the Plan topics as they reflect the goals
and concerns of the community at large and surrounding neighborhood.
The subject area being rezoned to R-2 will address the city's need for affordable
housing in a creative manner. While being zoned R-2, the proposed density of this
particular project, for which this approval is conditioned, will allow a greater density than
possible under the original R-1-5 zoning (even with density bonus options), it is not
greater than density that would be possible with other single family zoning designations
such as R-1-3.5. Very significantly, the Council finds that the subject area as, rezoned
and the surrounding development are all residential in nature, without any mixed
commercial or employment zoning designations proposed.
In order to determine whether the approved project was compatible, as required
by the specific language of the Policy VI-2(a), the Council took testimony to identify
those factors of the proposed use or development that might make it incompatible such
that it would lead to the deterioration of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The
comparison of this approved project to the Plan topics and surrounding residential areas
is important because the zone change is conditioned upon only this approved plan being
utilized. The use of the subject property is the same in the approved project and in
adjacent subdivisions -- single family residential.
Although the determined use is the same as adjacent neighborhoods, the Council
finds that the project is different from the surrounding residential developments in several
ways that were identified during the public hearings and in written comments. The
Council finds that the project's dwelling units will not be directly served by a public
street, they will not have iJ;1dividual garages but will have to use centrally located parking,
and several of the units will be attached dwellings with zero lot lines, all of which
differentiates it from surrounding development. The Council finds that none: of these
differences in subdivision design make it incompatible. To the contrary, the approved
Site Plan provides central parking encouraging pedestrian access to dweUings and
limiting impervious surfaces, it provides extensive open space while also creating
affordable housing (the target of several Policies as outlined herein).
The subject of several comments and critical to the denial of these applications by
the Planning Commission, was the determination that the increase in density would make
the application incompatible pursuant to this Policy and therefore must be denied. The
zone change will result in a density increase from conservatively 8 dwelling units under
the R-1-5 zone to the proposed 13 units. The Council, making these findings and
conclusions pursuant to its de novo review standard, interprets the application to not be
incompatible because the proposal will increase the allowed density of dwelling units.
This Policy is not an approval criterion which must be satisfied in order to approve this
application but, even if the Council had determined that this Policy was not nlet by the
application, other Policies which it satisfies may have outweighed this Policy as a whole
analysis. In reaching this conclusion, the Council evaluated not only the density of the
project in the abstract but the impacts which will be generated from the increase in
density to determine the project's compatibility with the surrounding residential areas.
The Council identified several impacts that may, to some degree, be related to the
12
increase in density. The Council found that the number of vehicles parking on the subject
property may be slightly increased but that the location, screening and residential nature
of the vehicles did not make it incompatible with the surrounding residential areas. The
Council found that the massing of the proposed buildings, although containing two or
three dwelling units were larger than homes on Kirk and Orchid Streets but were
essentially the same size as new homes on Fordyce Street, when compared to aerial
photographs of the surrounding residential area. The Council found that traffic generated
by the increase in density was minor compared with the capacity of Fordyce Street and
that the project is served only by private drive that does not connect or impact any further
development or area. The Council found that open space, set backs from surrounding
properties, standards for impervious surface coverage were all better or equal to the
standard of the surrounding residential areas. The Council specifically rej ects any
assertion that affordable housing cannot be compatible with adjacent owner-occupied
housing. The Council also finds that increased noise and light impacts cause:d by the
change in zoning are mitigated by the layout of dwellings, parking, pedestrian areas, and
central community areas and landscaping.
The Council concludes that because the project will not allow mixed uses or
incompatible or destructive residential development, it does not disrupt the existing
residential areas. The Council hereby incorporates the other discussion, conclusions and
findings relating to how the proposed project furthers the Comprehensive Plan Goals and
Policies as part of the rationale for approving this zone change and Map amendlnent.
Policy VI-3: Regulation of residential uses shall be designed to complement,
conserve and continue the aesthetic character of Ashland through use of the
following techniques:
a) Slope protection and lot coverage performance standards shall be used to
fit development to topography, generally following the concept that densi1y should
decrease with an increase in slope to avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts. This
objective shall be used consistent with the desire to preserve land by using the
smallest lot coverage possible. The proposal to change the zoning on the subject
property and related Site Plan will increase the potential density of the property
consistent with this Policy. The subject property is relatively flat and requires no hillside
protection.
b) Site and design review shall be used to ensure compatible multi-family
structures. Density incentives shall be used to encourage innovative, non-
standardized design in single-family areas. The application provides for innovative
development of single family units within a multi-family zoned property. The project
blends these concepts limiting and mitigating potential impact by merging sevt::ral of the
benefits of both - affordability, flexible site design, shared parking and open space. The
applicant has used the Performance Standards Option to allow this flexibility 'while still
producing a project that is in compliance with the balance of the Comprehensive Plan
Goals and Polides.
c) Performance standards shall be used to regulate new development in
Ashland so that a variety of housing types built for the site and imaginative
residential environments may be used to reduce cost and improve the aesthetic
13
character of new developments and decrease the use of traditional zoning and
subdivision standards. The Council puts substantial weight on this Policy, in light of
the long-standing difficulty of addressing Ashland's affordable housing issut~s. This
Policy encourages the creative design of housing projects allowing a shift from the
traditional residential development area formula in order to address issues of cost,
housing types and aesthetic character. The proposal utilizes the Performance Standards
option for the new development to provide unique housing in the form of co-housing; a
group of single family dwelling units that are constructed with the intent that o\vners will
utilize shared common facilities such as the dining facilities in the shared building,
extensive open space, community gardens and shared parking areas rather than individual
driveways and garages. The project has a mix of common wall units and will have units
of varying size and cost. All units will be deed restricted to ensure the affordability that
the initial applicants have established. The visual aesthetics reflect the creative design of
building location and pedestrian areas. Landscaping has utilized existing features where
possible. The Council finds that the project has significantly departed from traditional
subdivision standards but not in ways that make it incompatible with surrounding existing
uses.
Policy VI-5: the residential sector is the major user of energy in .Ashland.
Consistent with other housing goals, the City shall strive to promote, encourage or
require energy-efficient design in all new residential developments. Each unit is
designed to fulfill the requirements of the City's Earth Advantage program furthering this
Policy. Co-housing encourages interaction between members of the ownership
association through pedestrian pathways, restricted parking areas, shared facilities, all of
which reduce the vehicle trips used for such social opportunities in many other
communities. Additionally each unit is designed to ensure solar access to all units and
they are also designed to be passive solar.
Comprehensive Plan Chapter IV-Environmental Resources
Goal: Have sound soil conservation and erosion control practices in and around
Ashland.
Policy IV -5: Require that development be accommodated to natural topography,
drainage and soils to make maximum use of existing vegetation to minimiz(~ erosion.
The proposal complies with Chapter 18.72 and will preserve and maintain the existing
drainage way and 10' buffer areas.
Policy IV-I3: Use development performance standards based on th~: natural
topography, drainage, soils, lot coverage and densities in place of arbitrary
subdivision standards to ensure that natural features are an integral part of the
design phase of future development. The project master plans the entire subject
property preserving and enhancing the natural drainage way rather than standard
subdivision development that would cause significantly greater impacts by constructing a
city standard street to serve the resulting lots.
Goal: Protect the quality of riparian resource lands, and preserve their wild-life
14
habitats.
Policy IV -20: Where possible, utilize water-related areas for visual relief, pockets of
wildlife habitat, landscaping amenities, natural site design elements, recreational
uses, bike paths, and pedestrian and jogging trails. The proposal has: located
community gardens and open space along the natural drainage way to be preserved and
enhanced. The project will utilize the visual openness of the natural area transitioning
from riparian plantings to the community garden areas.
Comprehensive Plan Chapter V-Population Projections
Goal: To provide for the needs of the expected population growth in Ashland to the
year 2005, and maintain a diversity of income, cultural, and age groups in Ashland's
population, consistent with other Plan Goals. '
Policy V -4: Strive to maintain a diversity of population groups in A.shland,
especially if increased growth pressure leads to more expensive housing.
Concentrate on population groups that are important to Ashland's character, such
as students, artists and actors, employees of the city, school district, andl college,
service personnel who work in the tourism industry, hourly wage earners: in local
industries, and local residents who have not retired and live on fixed incontes. This
Policy reflects the affordable housing problems facing the City and further identified in
the Housing Needs Survey provisions cited by the applicant. The project creates not just
the required minimum affordable housing but the entire project is projected to provide
housing opportunities for the diverse population Ashland strives to maintain. The unique
elements of this project, while creating some additional potential impacts in existing
development are compatible with the Plan because of its ability to address difficult Policy
provisions like this Policy V -4.
Comprehensive Plan Chapter VIII-Aesthetic Resources
Goal: To provide the people of Ashland with a variety of quantity and qluality of
parks, park facilities, open spaces, trails, and visual resources sufficient for their
needs.
Policy VIII-5: Encourage the development of private common open space areas in
new residential developments to offset the demand for additional public parks. The
project creates substantial open space not just for visual effect but specifically designed
for recreation -- gardens, patio and play area, all of which will offset the demand for
public green space sought by the owners of standard subdivision homes or persons living
in developments with higher densities but less common area / open space.
Comurehensive Plan Chapter IX-Public Services
Goal: Provide sufficient water supply for Ashland resi~ents.
Policy IX-24: Encourage drainage systems that utilize natural drainage ,.vays and
minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff. The project maintains and enhances
the natural drainage system through the existing drainage, buffer areas and open space
drainage swales as identified on the Site Plan.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
15
B. SITE REVIEW / PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Purpose of Application:
Approval Criteria
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the dev1elopment,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
Criterion 1
18.72.070 -- All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that all applicable City
ordinances have or will be met by the proposed development as follows and no other
standards than the following were raised before the Council:
1. Base Density: The applicant has utilized the Performance Standards Option (ALUO
18.88) to develop a unique design and ownership structure utilizing a well
documented co-housing concept and layout. The subject property is currently zoned
R 1-5 but the approved zone change for the property is to Low Density Mu]lti-Family
Residential R-2. This application is for both a zone change and site revie1N and the
zone change is specifically conditioned on the proposed use of the propt:rty. The
Council concludes that the findings and conclusions under Section V.A. of these
Findings may not be satisfied by other potential permitted uses within an R-2 zoning
but that the approved use for single family attached dwelling units designed with the
co-housing concept for shared parking and common space are compatible with
adjacent properties and uses. The R-2 zoning allows for attached or detached
residential units of 13.5 per acre. The approved development is for 13 residential
units and accessory common building, parking and storage facilities~ \vithin the
allowed density of 18 units (1.33 acres x 13.5 units). No Bonus density is requested
or approved.
2. Performance Standard Option: As addressed below, the applicant has met all criteria
for the Performance Standard Option.
3. Solar: Chapter 18.70 regulates the amount of shading a structure can project onto
adjacent properties. Based on the building elevations (Record 83-87) and the site
16
plan (Record 89), the applicant has demonstrated that the project can or will comply
with the solar ordinance. Record 63. The construction must comply with the solar
access provisions of the ordinance as a condition of this approval.
4. Set Back Standards: The applicant is utilizing the Performance Standards Option
creating a unique design for the individual units within the project, several of which
will be attached, zero-lot-line dwellings. The project does exceed R-2 zone standards
for set backs front, rear and side, although the spacing between internal buildings
varies greatly. The project is designed with parameter set backs consistent with the
surrounding neighborhoods which are zoned R 1-5. As demonstrated in the site plan,
no building shall be separated by less than 12 feet.
5. Fire Safety: The applicant has designed for and will construct fire hydrants per the
City Fire Department Standards, pursuant to the approved site plan and a condition of
approval shall be a removable blockade that will allow fire vehicle access to the north
end of the subject property, at the time of development. The 20' driveway will
provide sufficient fire vehicle access pursuant to the approved site plan and the access
is relatively flat (slope below 15% grade).
6. Parking: The proposal will provide the required 25 parking spaces in a common
parking area. The 25 spaces meet the standard of 2 spaces per the 12 larger units and
1 space for the dwelling unit with less than 500 square feet. One space is designated
for disabled person parking with adjacent aisle. The parking area will be bordered by
open space and will be landscaped with a mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs. See,
Conceptual Landscape Plan. Record 93.
7. Tree Removal: The applicant has provided the necessary information for the tree
removal approval contained herein (See, below).
Criterion 2
18.72.070 -- All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the following
requirements have been met or will be met:
1. Information Provided: The applicant has provided all necessary information
including draft Findings, Site Plans, Landscape Plans, Topographical survey by
Terra Survey, Building Elevations, Drainage Plans and Tree remova1l requests
(including inventory and mitigation / preservation plan).
2. Lot Coverage / Openspace: Although the new zoning of the subject property will
be R-2, the applicant is providing a significant amount of both private and
common openspace as shown on the proposed Site and Landscape Plans. The
Landscape Plan more specifically addresses the types and details of the
landscaping. The total square footage of the subject property is 55,732 sq. ft.;
coverage of structures will be 14,800 sq. ft. (26% of total); additional irnpervious
surfaces 13,050 sq. ft. (23%); private yards will be 28% of total; recreational open
space will be 9,060 sq. ft. (15% of total). The total impervious surface coverage
will be less than 50% of the total square footage of the subject property. Record
64.
3. Recreation Space: As set forth above, the applicant is providing common
17
designate open space for a community plaza, patio and garden (11 % of total) as
well as accessory pedestrian pathways, altogether totaling 15% of the total project
square footage, in excess of the required 8% (See 18.24.040H). The dwelling
units also have private recreation outdoor space as identified on the site plan.
Record 88 and 90.
4. Trash and Bike Enclosures: The applicant will locate shared trash / recycling
areas as well as covered bike parking for the co-housing units adjacent to the
parking facilities as indicated on the Site Plan.
5. Controlled Access: No public street or dedication is required for service within
the R-2 zone. The applicant will provide driveway access to the designated
community parking area (the dwelling units will not have individual garages)
from Fordyce Street. No future connectivity to lands within the City's current
UGB is anticipated; Kirk and Orchid streets currently provide access to adjacent
residential lots. The driveway will be owned and maintained by the Co-housing
owner association through their CC&Rs, and will be constructed and maintained
in accordance with city code and standards. The driveway does not exceed 500
feet in length, including the fire vehicle turn-around at the north end. The north
end of the subject property may be accessed by fire safety vehicles along the
pedestrian / fire access area which will not generally be open to vehicular traffic
but will have a removable barrier as a condition of approval. The grade along this
fire access is well below 15% (See, Topographical survey) and is a minimum of
20 feet in width at all points.
6. Off Street-Parking: Parking shall be provided as detailed above; providing a
minimum of 25 spaces located as identified on the Site Plan for shared use.
7. Landscaping: All landscaping will comply with the Conceptual Landscape Plan
submitted by the applicant in order to provide a visual and acoustic buffer to
adjacent development. The Landscaping will enhance open space and riparian
areas and provide shading for impervious surfaces. The landscaping shall be
irrigated as indicated by the applicant.
Criterion 3
18.72.070 -- The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the following Multi-
Family residential design requirements have been met or will be met:
1. Orientation: Residential buildings shall have their primary orientation to the
street when they are within 20 to 30 feet of the street. Buildings shall be set back
from the street according to ordinance requirements, which is usual~y 20 feet.
Buildings shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas shall
not be located between buildings and the street. Most units (# 1-11) are designed
to face the central common space of the project. Unit 12 is oriented to the private
drive access and unit 13 is the sole dwelling unit that fronts on a public street,
Fordyce, and is oriented towards Fordyce Street. Record 72, 84 and 90. Set
18
backs for the project meet all requirements for setback from public sidewalk
(15'), driveway (10') and side yard (6') in addition to setbacks from accessory
structures (20'). All other units meet or exceed parameter setbacks. Rt~cord 72.
All dwellings are accessed from Fordyce Street and sidewalk via the private drive
and pedestrian path, which extends the length of the project. There is no front
yard parking proposed; all parking is located in shared parking areas, consistent
with the co-housing concept; no parking is allowed on the private drive. The Site
Plan and Landscape plan for the location of a required street tree on Fordyce
Street, trees within the common area, specifically for shading of the common
parking area.
2. Streetscape: One street tree for each 30 feet of frontage, chosen from the street
tree list, shall be place on that portion of development paralleling the street.
Front yard landscaping shall be similar to those found in residential
neighborhoods, with appropriate changes to decrease water use. The project has
62 feet of street frontage along Fordyce Street. The applicant shall provide the
required street tree consistent with the Landscape Plan and the code. The Council
concludes that the Conceptual Landscape Plan will or can be s:lmilar to
surrounding residential neighborhood front yards as required by the code. There
is no evidence to the contrary in the Record.
3. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within
one year of installation and 90% landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years.
Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and
shrubs and flowering plant species well adapted to the local climate. As many
healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably feasible. Buildings
adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at least 10 feet in
width. Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and
shall be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses. Irrigation systems
shall be installed to assure landscaping success. The applicant has provided a
Conceptual Landscape Plan that will satisfy the above standards. Applicant has
indicated that the design of the landscaping will meet these standards. The
Council concludes that it can and will, in accordance with the Landscape: Plan and
Tree Removal Plan, meet this criterion. Record 73 and 93-96. Tree Commission
approval of the Final Landscape Plan is a condition of approval.
4. Open Space. An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to
opens pace for recreation for use by tenants of the development. Decks, patios,
and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Applicant has established,
at a minimum, 6,660 sq. ft. will be community open space available for use by the
owners of the dwelling units, equating to 11 % of the total project area, in excess
of the requirements of this criterion. Record 64.
5. Natural Climate Control. Utilized deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low
bare branch densities on the south sides of the buildings which are occupied and
have glazing for summer shade and winter warmth. Deciduous trees 'with early
leaf drop and low bare branches will be planted on the south sides of buildings.
Special attention within the Landscape Plan is paid to the preservation of winter
solar access and creation of shading during the summer. Record 73 and 94.
6. Building Materials. Building materials and paint colors should be compatible
19
with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors which
attract attention to the building or use are unacceptable. Materials will be board
and batt with horizontal lap siding as depicted on elevations. Record 83-87. Paint
colors will not be bright primary colors or neon type. Record 73.
7. Parking and Screening Standards. Parking abutting a required landscaped front
or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obscuring hedge screen into the
required landscaped yard. The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches or
higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except for required vision
clearance areas. The Landscape Plan shall include, as a condition of approval, a
sight obscuring hedge to grow at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of
the parking area. The common parking areas are adjacent to the open space of the
project and the Council finds that the applicant can and will comply with the
parking screening standards.
Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking
area plus a ratio of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy affect.
Tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be
selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities,
and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. The trees shall be
planted in the landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2 feet from any
curb or paved area. The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or
living ground cover to assure 50% coverage within one year and 90%, within 5
years. Landscaped area shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area
and parking perimeter at the required ratio. The Landscape Plan and findings
and conclusions made herein demonstrate compliance with these criteria and the
applicant can and will construct parking lot landscaping consistent vvith these
standards.
Parking areas adjacent to a residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8 feet
from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. The parking
areas shall be screened with hedges, as required above, and the designated shared
parking area shall be set back at least 8 feet from the residential buildings to be
constructed pursuant to the approved site plan as set froth on the Site Plan.
Refuse Containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement of
a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse
materials shall be contained within the refuse area. The trash / recycle areas
located within the parking areas and shall be screened, as a condition of the
approval, by a six foot high split faced masonry wall and further screened by
shrubs pursuant to the Landscape Plan.
Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct
illumination on adjacent residential properties or streets. Any wall or pole
mounted lighting throughout the project (shared parking, storage and. common
building facilities) shall be installed as to not produce direct illumination on
adjacent residential properties or streets.
20
Criterion 4
18.72.070 -- That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and
through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the StrE~et
Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
1. Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that there is substantial
evidence in the Record of adequate facilities based on the testimony of the applicant
and application submitted. See, applicant's Utility and Grades Plan. This is further
based on the Findings as set forth above. The Council hereby concludes that the
applicant has demonstrated that the project can and will, as constructed, be provided
with adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, private drive pavl~d access
and Fordyce Street, Ashland electricity, storm drainage (as designed by the applicant)
and transportation facilities. No additional street right-of-way is required to serve this
project.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18.88.030 Procedure for Approval - Performance Standards
A. Outline Plan:
4. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been
met:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland.
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and Ilhrough the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and
that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large
trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features
have been included in the open space, common areas, and un buildable areas.
d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown
in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or
provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or hi!~her ratio
of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
The Council hereby approves the outline plan based on the Findings above and the
Conclusions addressing the criteria of 18.88.030, more specifically discussed below.
Criterion 1
18.88.030 -- That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this criterion is satisfied,
21
consistent with the conclusions set forth above In Section V(B)(1); and specifically
incorporates those conclusions by reference.
Criterion 2
18.88.030 -- That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate
transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.;
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council incorporates the Conclusions of law set
forth in Section V(B)(4) above and further concludes that based on the testimony of the
applicant and city fire officials that the project will be adequately served by existing city
fire and police services and that the development will not cause any of the city facilities
to operate beyond stated capacity. The Council specifically concludes that there is no
evidence in the Record to indicate any failure or anticipated failure in city serv:lce to the
approved proj ect.
Criterion 3
18.88.030 -- That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds,
large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and Hignificant
features have been included in the open space, common areas, and un buildable areas.; and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the existing drainage
swale is to be considered a "floodplain corridor" under the City's Floodplain Corridor
Lands classifications. More specific conclusions relating to this drainage are addressed
below as part of the Physical & Environmental Constraints review and those conclusions
are hereby incorporated by reference. This drainage way has been identified and the
development plan has accommodated and will preserve this natural drainage feature
within the unbuildable common area and open space of the project thereby minimizing
any drainage impacts on adjacent properties and preserving natural features currently on
the property.
Criterion 4
18.88.030 -- That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the
uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that all adjacent property
within the City's incorporated limits are committed and developed as single family
residential. The property west of the project is outside of the City and is currently
designated under the City's Comprehensive Plan as residential. Should this property
ever be considered for future growth of the incorporate area of the City, the Council
concludes it could have city service connectivity along several other adjacent city
streets. The development hereby approved will not prevent the property to the west
from being developed, should it be determined that such a consideration must be
undertaken pursuant to this criterion.
22
Criterion 5
18.88.030 -- That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if
required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or
higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that, based on the testimony of
the applicant and the application, that the maintenance of the common area and open
space will be provided for by the CC&R of the co-housing association. Should any of the
project be done in phases, all infrastructure and common space amenities shall be
constructed as part of the first phase of development.
Criterion 6
18.88.030 -- That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council hereby incorporates the conclusions set
forth above in Section V(B)(1), that the proposed density of 13 units is within the base
density standards for the subject property, as rezoned R-2.
Criterion 7
18.88.030 -- The development complies with the Street Standards.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The proposal will take access via a private drive and is
therefore not required to construct any improvements that must comply with City Street
Standards. The Council therefore concludes this criterion is inapplicable.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. . PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the
Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to Ithe
property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning
Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
Purpose of Application: This approval allows the applicant to culvert a portion of an
existing drainage way and enhance the remainder of that drainage way consistent with
more natural riparian plantings. The current drainage is a natural swale approxiJnately
23
one foot wide and one foot deep. This channel crosses half of the subject site before
degrading into an undefined swale until it reaches adjacent properties. The mapped
channel is completely within the subject property. The approved application will enhance
this natural drainage and will permit the construction of a private 20' drive that 'will cross
the drainage with the applicant construction a culvert for that portion of the drainage to
be impacted by the driveway.
This P & E review is conducted at this time because the proposed development is part of
at Site Review, Performance Standards Development and Zone Change application.
Criterion 1
18.62.040 -- Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to
the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized,
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the standards of this
chapter have ensured that the impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered as part of the review process and the adverse impact have been minimized by
the applicants proposed improvements to the drainage areas. Record 44, 45, 60 and 91.
3) Criterion 2
18.62.040 -- That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and
implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The approved proposal demonstrates that the applicant
has considered and has mitigated any impacts that may be associated with culv1erting the
drainage way and by the enhancement of the riparian area (10' area on either side) of the
drainage within the common area of the project.
3) Criterion 3
18.62.040 -- That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the applicant has taken
all reasonable steps to reduce environmental impacts caused by the development
(culverting) on the drainage way and that the projects landscaping plan will benefit the
drainage system.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. TREE PRESERVATION, PROTECTION AND REMOVAL
Purpose of Application: Any development of this property will require the removal of
trees. There are 17 trees on or adjacent to the property which have a diameter (dbh) of
six inches or greater, 4 of which are proposed to be removed. Trees to be remloved will
24
be removed at the time of excavation and improvement for the private drive and building
construction, prior to final plat approval.
Tree Removal Permit Approval Criteria
18,61,080{B) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
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 prop~~rty have
existing trees but the majority of the construction areas have few if any trees. The
approved outline plan shows removal of trees as a result of the limited area for access and
the dwelling units that will provide the streetscape along Fordyce Street, which is
consistent with the Performance Review option. There are 17 trees on or adjact~nt to the
property which have a diameter (dbh) of six inches or greater and 4 of these are proposed
to be removed. The trees to be removed and those to be preserved are inventoried and
shown Record 94.
A Tree Removal Permit is required to remove three trees because the trees are greater
than 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). The three trees are identifie:d on the
inventory as trees # 12-14.
The strategies for tree preservation are set forth in Record 94 (the Tree
Protection/Removal Plan / Tree Protection/Removal Plan Narrative) both prepared by
Applicant's expert landscape architect, KenCaim Sager Landscape Architects, Inc.
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. The removal of trees is required: 1) to be consistent with other applicabJle ALUO
requirements and standards, and 2) to comply with substantive provisions of
18.62.070.
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
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the trees to be
removed will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, protection
of adjacent trees (which the landscape plan has clearly intended to preserve) or existing
windbreaks. The drainage flow identified on the subj ect property will be presl~rved and
25
improved as provided in this approval. The tree removal and mitigation plan, together
with the Landscape Plan ensure compliance with this criterion. Record 93-96.
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: The applicant submitted a tree protection plan which
was approved by the Planning Commission. Council concludes that the applicant's tree
removal and mitigation plan will not significantly impact the tree densiti~:s, sizes,
canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The sole evidence
in the Record in relation to tree impact is that material submitted by the applicant and
based on that information (tree removal plan and landscape plan) the Council concludes
this criterion is satisfied.
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 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 alternativH 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.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The applicant has provided a tree removal and
mitigation plan and compliance with it shall be a condition of permit approval.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 drawn
to scale and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
26
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other
utility lines/facilities and easements;
d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches;
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory
of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each
tree.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth
in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to
clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all
construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart,
shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the
boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel
being developed.
3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor
for the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to
dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked
vehicles.
6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as
paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess,
construction debris, or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree
protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
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 rE~quired 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
93-96, demonstrate compliance with Ashland's tree protection requirements as set forth
in 18.61.200.
27
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR LANDS
Purpose of Application: The subject property is covered by Development standards for
Floodplain Corridor Lands on Ashland's Physical and Environmental Constraints map
ALUO 18.62.050(A)(5) (All areas within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage
channel depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Riparian
Preservation.). Therefore, subdivision of the property is subject to the requirements of
ALUO 18.62.070 (Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands). The
development standards in ALUO 18.62.070 are addressed as follows:
Floodplain Corridor Lands Approval Criteria
18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands
The City Council concludes that there being no evidence to the contrary and that staff has
fully reviewed the applications for applicable criteria (Record 49-50), the Coundl
determines that the following are the only provisions of 18.62 applicable to these:
consolidated applications:
Criterion 1
A Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands:.
1. Fill shan be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, vvhere applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be at least ten feet outside of floodway channels, as defined in Section
15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the materia! used for fill.
3. The amount of fiI! in the F!ood plain corridor shaH be kept to a minimum. Fill and other materia!
imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shaH be limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, aod fill associated with approved pubHc and private
street and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultura! material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fin materiaL...
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to the various
subparts of Criterion 1:
1. Applicant has proposed a pre-fabricated concrete structure that shall conform to any
applicable UBC standards, with segmental retaining walls and structural fill
associated with the construction of the private drive across the drainage way.
2. Riparian landscaping will be provided within the 10' buffer zone in association with
any grading, pursuant to the Landscape Plan. The project does not have any
identified floodway area.
28
3. The private drive crossing will be 548 square feet in area requiring less than 41 cubic
yards of imported fill. No additional fill shall be placed in the drainage way except
that required for the culvert approved herein. Concerns that flood water may be
displaced by the landscaping or tree removal proposed by the applicant 'were not
raised with sufficient detail to determine if this assertion is relevant to an approval
criterion but to the extent the concern was raised that tree removal would rt:duce the
water retention, the Council concludes based on the applicants landscape and grading
plan, the applicant intends on improving the drainage way and water absorption
through open space and swales. The proposal is within the criterion standards for the
amount of material placed in the drainage way provided an engineered culvert is
installed to carry the 100 year flood water, the same is a condition of this approval.
4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the matters covered in Criterion 1 will be satisfied by the applicants
proposed culverting of the drainage way for construction of the private drive, as
prepared by a civil engineer.
Criterion 2
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to
18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer.
Conclusions of Law: The applicant proposes that the culvert be designed by an engineer
in order to accommodate the passage of water associated with the 100-year flood event
for that drainage. Record 42, 77.
VI
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS; DECISION; 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
these applications 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 are,
approved and made subject to the conditions of the City Council and the st~pulations
offered by Applicant and accepted by the City Council, all as set forth herein below.
More specifically, the City Council herewith conditionally approves the following actions
29
on the various subject land use applications considered and disposed of as .Ashland
Planning Action 2004-128.
1. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment and Zone Change. Application for Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Zone change from Single Family Residential (R-1-5-P) to Low. Density
Multi-Family (R-2).
2. Site Review / Performance Standards Option. Application for Site Review,
pursuant to ALUO 18.72, for development within an R-2 zone, contingent on the
rezoning and mapping of the subject property. The Outline Plan proposed under the
Performance Standards options of ALUO 18.88 allows for the creative, innovative and
flexible design of the development.
3. Physical Constraints Permit. Application for a Physical Constraints Revie'w Permit
to allow the development of a 20 foot wide private drive to serve the proposed
development and the placing of a culvert where that drive would impact the area
identified as "land drainage."
4. Tree ProtectionlRemoval. Application for Tree Removal Permit for the removal of
three trees over 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (identified as numbers 12-14,
Record 94-96) and Tree #16, which is a 4 inch multi trunked Box Elder. Tree
protection/removal is governed by ALUO 18.61.
4) City Council Conditions
The following conditions are herewith attached to these applications and made a part
thereof:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein;
2. That an engineered design for the proposed driveway crossing over the drainage way
be submitted at the time of Final Plan for review and approval by the Planning
Department and Public Works Department. The driveway shall be designed to
accommodate a 100year flood flow, as well as minimize the extent offill that extends
into the drainage way;
3. That the project and 100% of the residences comply with the Earth A.dvantage
Program. Specific compliance with program parameters shall be coordinated through
and approved by the City of Ashland Conservation Division prior to signature of the
final survey plat;
4. That a final grading, erosion control and planting plan for the realigrunent and
stabilization of the existing drainage way be provided at the time of Final Plan. The
planting plan shall incorporate native plant and tree species appropriate to soil type
30
and the hydrological characteristics of the drainage way;
5. That two residences shall be sold to qualifying buyers with incomes at or be]low 60%
of Median Income, or three residences all be sold to qualifying buyers with incomes
at or below 800/0 of Median Income. The affordable residences shall be identified at
the time of final plan and shall be consistent with all requirements of Acshland' s
Affordable Housing Program and be reviewed by the City's Housing Program
Specialist and approved prior to issuance of a building permit;
6. That one affordable residence (under the City program) receive approval of a building
permit and be sold to a qualified household; or one sold to a qualified non-profit
housing provider for every four to five market rate units that are issued building
permits;
7. That the specific details of the OHCS Bond Loan Program and Equity Limitation
Agreement shall be presented as part of the application for Final Plan, andl that the
agreement shall be as stipulated by the applicant's addendum materials, and that the
City shall be named as a beneficiary of that agreement;
8. That a restrictive covenant be recorded on the development that limits the project
density to the 13 units proposed. The Ashland City Council may only approve
amendments to the restricted covenant upon notice to surrounding properties;,
9. That the design and materials associated with the construction of the public pathway
be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering and Planning Divisions
prior at the time of Final Plan. The multi-use pathway shall be a minimum of 6 feet
in width and surfaced with an all-weather surface such as concrete, asphalt, or
permeable surface prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If fencing is
installed along the west property line, a gate shall be installed at the terminus of the
public pathway. The CC&R's shall stipulate that the gate shall be removed at the
expense of the Homeowner's Association upon extension of the pathway to the
property west of the proj ect;
10. That a final grading plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Division and Planning Department prior to Final Plan approval. The
grading plan shall indicate final elevations of all driveway and parking areas relative
to building envelopes. Cut and fill slopes associated with the construction of project
infrastructure shall be treated with the erosion control methods described in Chapter
18.62;
11. That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Division and Building Division prior to Final Plan approval. 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, clean-outs, on-site storm drainage and the location of catch basins;
31
12. That prior to disturbance of the site, a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for.
No trees shall be removed until a Tree Verification Permit has been approved. All
tree preservation measures proposed by the applicant shall be implemented prior to
issuance of the Tree Verification Permit. At Final Plan, the applicant and applicant's
landscape architect shall address the protection of trees located on the northern
neighbor's property, and shall be responsible for implementation of these rneasures.
The final landscape and tree protection plans shall be reviewed by the full Tree
Commission during Final Plan review period. Final mitigation plans shall also be
submitted for review as part of Final Plan;
13. That the applicant submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and
all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the
Electric Department prior to Final Plan approval and/or building permit issuance.
Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streds, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department;
14. That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all proposed
structures in the project shall be included at the time of submission of building
permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and
shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the: land use
application;
15. 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 Dt~partment
prior to issuance of a building permit. A protective, removable gate or post shall be
installed to insure the emergency access area remains clear;
16. That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan incorporating the
recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission for landscaped areas including,
but not limited to, all common areas and planning strips as part of Final Plan. An
irrigation system plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of
a building permit. The applicant shall provide a report regarding tree preservation
and root protection through the use of alternate materials for paving, such as
permeable asphalt or other acceptable alternative;
17. That an "opportunity-to-recycle" site for use by project residents shall be identified
for the project in accordance with the standards described in Section 18.72.115 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, prior to issuance of a building permit;
18. The bicycle parking shall be designed and installed as described in Section 18.92.040.
The final location, rack and shelter design shall be included for review and approval
by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit;
19. That the zone change for this site is tied specifically to this land use action, and is
32
contingent upon the use of the property in accord with the City Council's approval;
20. That there shall be no meetings in the Community Building, or other areas on site,
open to the general public, and the Community Building shall not be leased or rented
for non-member activities. Such restriction of use shall be indicated in the CC&R's.
Dated:
~-~/-~s
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
~~~~~-
By: Kate Jackson
Council Chair
33