Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0617 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any cit zen may orally address he Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on,any item on the:Agenda. unless it is the subject of apublic hearing and the record is closed. Except for public hearings, there isno absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. "rime permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public- meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public participation. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair: will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL ' June 17, 2008 Council Chambers 1176 E. Main Street 6:00 p.m. Executive Session to consult with legal council regarding pending litigation pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(h) and to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to ORS 192.660(3) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes] 1. Study Session of June 2, 2008 2. Executive Session of June 3, 2008 3. Regular Council of June 3, 2008 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Should the Council approve the Intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County to pay $5300.00 to use the County sobering unit? 3. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Treg Scott for a term to expire April 30, 2011 to the Airport Commission? I 4. Shall the City Administrator be designated as the primary person responsible to insure an annual audit is performed per ORS 297? 5 "Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget for FY 2007-2008 Budget a third time to create appropriations and authorize expenditure of grants received to purchase firefighter protective clothing and help pay for annual health insurance renewal?" 16 Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law? VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC §2.04.050.E)) 1. Should the Council grant a request for Outline Plan approval of a six-lot, five unit Performance Standards subdivision which includes a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six- inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASI-IL.AND.OR.US allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project? [60 Minutes] 2. Will Council approve increases to the Water, Wastewater, Transportation and Storm Water utility rates effective August 1, 2008? [45 Minutes] /f ~GSpS IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. How does Council wish to distribute Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue generated by,/~ the existing 7% and the additional 2% tax to be implemented effective October 1, 2008? j /SCSa XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS I fir" 5 1. Does the Council wish to approve an agreement to partially settle MAA v. City of Ashland? ORD Please Note: Materials will be provided on June 17, 2008. XII. DINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS Should Council make changes in the duties and responsibilities of the Municipal Audit Committee and approve a resolution titled, "A Resolution clarifying the duties and Responsibilities of the Municipal Audit Commi ee attend-Nfaking the City Recorder an Ex-Officio Member and Repealing Resolution No. 2003-07"? fjL.t Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Readinq of an Ordinance titled, " An v Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance concerning special [arterial] setbacks and associated street standards adopted in Ordinance 2836" and move /approval of the ordinance? [5 Minutes] Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.24.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code Increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax" and move approval of the ordinance? [5 Minutes] Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 20~ 08 to--an- including June 30, 2009, Such taxes in the sum of $8,616,000 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment nd levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" and move pproval the ordinance? v5 )Should the e City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance relating to delegation of duties to the City Administrator for acceptance of interest in real property and the renewal of intergovernmental agreements and amending AMC Chapter 2.28" and move approval of the ordinance? I5 Minutes] 6. Should the City Council conduct and appr a First Reading of a50rdinance titled, "An Ordinance amending Chapter 2125, Street Tree Commisswn, amending name, membership, quorum, powers and duties, and other requirements" and move the ordinance to Second `J Reading? [30 Minutes] Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading o Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance relating to water regulation and crass connection, an repealling Ordinance 2773" and move the ordinance Second e - irst R Readieads Should the City Council conduct and appr appro_n f Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance relating to lawn sprinklers, providing a penalty, and amending AMC section 15.16.170" and move the ordinance to Second Reading? [5 Minutes] XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL. 9 VISIT TIIECITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 2, 2008 PAGE I oft MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, June 2, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Chapman called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ATTENDANCE Councilors Hartzell, Hardesty, Navickas and Jackson were present. Councilor Silbiger and Mayor Morrison were absent. 1. Look Ahead Review. City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Council Look Ahead. 2. Review of Regular Meeting Agenda of June 3, 2008 Arterial Setback Ordinance City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified two options for the Arterial Setback Ordinance which included some generic language. Councilor Hardesty was not opposed to the proposed generic language but voiced her concern that the setback ordinance is a big change and that it overshadows the sidewalk requirement. Staff recommended holding to the standard and offered to bring back suggestions for language that the council could discuss to address concerns voiced. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan Project City Council and the some members of the Planning Commission jointly heard an update from consultants from Jason Graf, Crandall-Arambula and Alan Snook, DKS and Associates. The report offered four alternatives on the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. These options included data on Housing, Office, Retail/Commercial, Industrial, Parks Open Space and Park and Ride spaces. The consultants explained the process and schedule. These included an informational assembly, reconnaissance, conceptual plan and review, plan refinement (if needed) and then the final plan. The results of the workshops that were held and goals were identified. The goals were based on circulation, land use, policies and regulations. Agenda - Results of Workshop Goals identified - Concepts, Light industrial, Office Campus Workshop #2 Presented response sheet and introduced housing into development. Option B - Included transit and neighborhood center. Option C - Mix of office and industrial uses. .Option D - Office/Employment parcels - served larger employment types. Presented visual diagrams on all options with transportation concepts and noted that Option D was the preference by those that attended the public meetings. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 2, 2008 PAGE 2 of 2 Vehicle Trips comparison and transportation analysis was presented along with comparisons on each of the options and how these trips would effeci Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road. A new Connector Roadway was presented and potential for realignment verses existing roadway was discussed. Council and Planning Commission members provided feedback and a variety of issues, including: • The roadway section should be three lanes versus five lanes regardless of the plan • Discussion about transit, rail and bike/pedestrian • That the plan should look at desired employment density and a variety of other performance- based regulations rather than looking at a narrow, band of uses • General discussion that there may be certain types offices and manufacturing-type uses that could be compatible and could generate the concentration of employment that is desired; • Should look at the possibility of consolidating parking and related costs • Look at the Washington/Jefferson Street area if that area is the place where lower-density employment and light industrial uses need to take place and • The desire for environmental and sustainability concepts integrated into the planning and design regulations. It was also determined that there needed to be further discussion on the following: • Definition of "Green Design" • Mixing light industrial with Option D • Maintaining employment density • Reconsider transportation figures by taking into the current cost of fuel • Finding a way to make this development affordable at all stages • Environmental issues associated with housing • Assumptions being discussed should be better researched • Market analysis completed • Consider using other term than "Office Park" • Affordable housing analysis • Goal should not necessarily be to "beautify" the area and • Be creative in the design. Continued discussion on setback ordinance Council continued to discuss the difficulty with following the existing interpretation and what was being proposed in the ordinance. Staff was presented with several questions regarding the proposed ordinance that the council would like to discuss when the ordinance is presented for approval. Suggestion was made that this ordinance be sent back to the Planning Commission and Tree Commission for further evaluation. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen City Recorder CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3, 2008 Page 1 of 11 MINUTUES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 3, 2008 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor announced vacancies and noted that if anyone was interested in volunteering for any Commissions they should contact the City Recorder's Office. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Study Session of May 19, 2008, Executive Session of May 19, 2008 and the Regular Council of May 20, 2008 was approved as amended. The regular meeting minutes of May 20, 2008 were corrected on page 5 to reflect correct discussion by Councilor Navickas under discussion on continued original motion. Sentence should state the following "prioritizing public good over private interests." SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor's Proclamation of June 14, 2008 as Flag Day in the City of Ashland was read aloud. Mayor introduced those students that would be representing our City as ambassadors for our Sister City of Guanajuato. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 04/09 and 04/10/08 Citizens' Budget Committee 04/17/08 Citizens' Budget Committee 04/21/08 Citizens' Budget Committee 2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Peter Alzado dba Oregon Stage Works at 191 A Street? 3. Will the Council approve the Agreement for Services between the City of Ashland and the Rogue Valley Transportation District? Councilor Hartzell requested that Consent item #3 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Chapman/Hartzell m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1 and 42. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Hartzell noted that next Monday night there would be a transit report by consultant HDR and wanted to know if there was anything in the report that would have an affect in the coming years or implications on what the agreement the council was being asked to approve. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer clarified that the options that the consultants are developing for Monday are long-term transit options and it is unlikely any could be implemented within this next year. The agreement the council is being asked to approve is just for this upcoming year. CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3, 2008 Page 2 of I I Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #3. DISCUSSION: Staff clarified that the consultants are still working on the options and that if they are ready prior to the Monday meeting they will be posted on the city website sooner. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Adoption of FY2009 Budget and conduct First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2008 to and including June 30, 2009, such taxes in the sum of $8,616,000 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" and move to Second Reading on June 17, 2008? Public Hearing open: 7:15 p.m. No speakers came forward. Public Hearing closed: 7:16 p.m. 2. Does Council wish to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 7% to 9%? Does the Council wish to pass first reading of the attached ordinance? Public Hearing open: 7:17 p.m. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report and explained that this follows the direction from council at their April 15, 2008 meeting. Using this information staff is recommending that the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) be raised to 9%. Staff provided a table with information that came out of the April 15 meeting which indicated different types of allocation based on existing 7%, staff proposal of 9% and council direction of 9%. This table broke down information between non-tourism and tourism. He noted that during the Economic and Cultural grant development process, applicants showed a little over $40,000 as tourism related expenses and the total request for Economic and Cultural grants was $320,000 of which $40,000 was a portion of this. Approximately $125,410 was awarded which reduced the amount going to tourism, which was $8,719. Staff included a draft Resolution which would make this increase effective October 1, 2008 and give the lodging industry time to adjust to the proposed increase. Tax revenues would begin to be received for those that report on a monthly basis in Novbember 2008 and those that report on a quarterly basis in January 2009. Katy Bazylewilz/344 Idaho/Board President for Ashland Chamber of Commerce shared their appreciation of the City's support and appreciation on the increase, if the TOT increase is approved. She noted the good job of collaboration that has happened between all the entities involved and the opportunity to promote our community. Sandra Slattery/110 E Main Street/Exectutive Director of Ashland Chamber of Commerce noted how important it is for the City to reinvest in the promotion of tourism and economic development through the Chamber. She noted how the Chamber offers all the tools needed to make the community successful and the importance of collaboration amongst all the entities in order to deal with the all the unforseen changes in the future. She noted how the competition for tourism is fierce and that it is important during these economic challenging times for the Vistor and Convention Bureau (VCB) to receive additional dollars to gamer more exposure, build more events and remain competitve in the market place. She also noted the importance of building more events in the off season and create more reasons for people to visit our community. The support by the City through tourism dollars helps to support independent businesses and the Chamber supports the City's proposal to grant monies to the VCB. CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3, ?008 Page 3 of 11 Graham Lewis/152 N Pioneer/Encouraged the council to allocate the majority of the 7% required for tourism to the VCB. He stated that this is the body of the Chamber that provides tourism in our community and it not only pays for advertising but offers the opportunity for articles in travel magazines, newspapers and other publications. Dale Verger/36 S 2nd Street/owners of Monet restaurant who noted their recognition on the potential that Ashland has to offer. She noted her membership with the VCB and that she is currently the Board President of this organization. She stated that as a buisiness owner they rely on the VCB to bring tourism to our community through their advertising. Urged the council to approve the TOT increase and to dedicate a good portion of this to the VCB. Mallory Pierce/885 Tyler Crrek Rd/Directorof Marketing and Communication for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF). Stated their support to increase 2% which would keep the City on par with Medford and Jacksonville and would generate important revenue for promoting Ashland tourism throughout the entire year. OSF supports the original staff recommendation at the April 15, 2008 meeting. In keeping with the spirit of the state statute requiring 70% of any increase in the TOT to be spent on tourism the original staff recommendation allowing $300,000 of the estimated available funds to the Ashland VCB and the remaining balance to a combination of economic development, real property and improvements and Ashland Chamber of Commerce seems to be the wisest promotion of these monies. She stated that the goal of the VCB is to promote all of Ashland and should be recognized as a leader statewide in tourism promotion. Denise Daehler/96 N Main Street #201/Noted that she has been a business owner in Ashland for about two years. Noted tlieir appreciation of the community and hopes to continue to prosper in this community. Stated their support for the proposed increase in the TOT and that it be directed toward the VCB in order to continue the collaborative effort for increase in tourism. Deanne Anderson/618 Fair Oaks Court/Noted that she is a business owner and voiced her support of the increase in TOT and that it go towards VCB and Ashland Chamber of Commerce. She noted the difficulty for businesses due to seasonal tourism and that it is important to try and bring in tourism during winter months. She stated that these monies will help to promote adjuncts to OSF and noted that they have 20 people who work for them and that this will help to continue with employment for these individuals. She shared information about a new Ashland Wellness Tour. Ginny Aver/1500 E Main Street/Interim Executive Director of Science Works. She noted her involvment with VCB and her support that as much monies be directed to the VCB as possible. She voiced her appreciation of the grant monies that have been awarded to Science Works and shared how these monies had been used. Garrett Furnichi/172 4fh StreetNoiced his support for the advertising dollars because he felt it would come directly back to their business. Commented on the economic crisis at this point and feels that this increase will help. Michelle Glass/212 E Main Street/Food & Beverage Director for the Ashland Springs Hotel. She shared experience in the food and beverage industry and understands the difficulty with running a successful and profitable food and beverage business in Ashland. She stated that the holel has 50 employees and noted the difficulty when these individuals have to be laid off during the off season. She believes that revenue opportunities are available in the winter seasons and that increased advertising during this time would affect the liviability of Ashland for its workers and the revenues that the businesses and the City enjoys. Jac Nickels/821 Beach Street/Noted that he has lived in Ashland since 1973 and voiced appreciation for the / CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3. 2008 Page 4 of I I increase in budget for tourism and the work by the Ashland Chamber of Commerce on increasing tourism in the community. He also noted that he is the chairman for Economic Stability for the Ashaand Chamber of Commerce. He stated that due to the economic times that it is important to bring new businesses into town. He believes that there will be a decline in tourism and urged the council to increase the budget for the Chamber to continue its efforts for economic development. Tom Olbrich/356 Alta Street/Noted that he has been a resident in this community for 28 years and is the Executive Director of the Ashland Film Festival and has served as a volunteer VCB. He spoke in favor of increasing the TOT to 9% and felt that this increase would be good for the community. If the proposed increase is approved, the Economic & Cultural Development subcommittee would see a substantial increase in funding and the Film Festival is greatful for the grants that have been awarded to them. He voiced his understanding on the difficulty that this committee struggles with every year when awarding these grants. He noted the lack of funding for the VCB is dramatic and the proposed increase is based on what other communities have done. He stated that the annual Film Festival would not exist without the grant monies from the City and is aware of how a strong, vibrant, VCB would be an asset to the Ashland Film Festival and other non profit organizations. He voiced his support on the increase of the TOT to the VCB and for the Economic & Cultural subcommittee grantees. Pam Hammond/632 Walnut/Noted that she is the Vice President of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and co-owner of Paddington Station. If council approves the TOT they should consider the VCB and noted the challenges during the current economic times in regards to costs. She noted their support of VCB who has the ability to promote and develop events outside our region with proper funding. Josh Hammock/1239 Old Willow Lane/Noted that he runs the Stratford Inn and voiced his concern with the timing of the proposed increase of TOT. Commented on how the increase of 2% to the TOT would affect those customers that have already made reservations to come to their business. He explained how budgets are shrinking and he is uneasy with the July 1, 2008 date and would prefer the October 1, 2008 start date in order to prepare. He voiced his support of increasing the amount given to the VCB who he believes knows better on how to manage the money. Chuck Young/1313 Clay Street/Noted that he is co-owner of a Bed & Breakfast (B&B) and is the designated spokeman for B&B organization. He voiced his caution about the current economy and how money is going to be spent based on past history. He stated that there is a general comfort level with the proposed increase and their confidence level with the VCB as they are in the best position to spend this money wisely. He challenges that the state mandates 70% go to tourism and that 30% can be spent at will. He would like that over time to get more of the 70% of the proposed 2% increase geared toward tourism in order to be more competitve with other cities in the state. Don Anway/212 E Main Street/General Manager of Ashland Springs Hotel. He understands how the VCB should run and asked that the council look at the percentages that the staff has presented. He noted his concern that Medford has over $400,000 for a promotion budget as compared to Ashland which has only $208,000. He stated that the proposed 3.9% increase for the VCB is not that much money and is concerned with where the allocations are. He felt that the council should think about the small tourism grants and that the VCB can work with small grantees and draw people to come and visit Ashland and promote their events. He felt that it was more important that the VCB receive more of an increase and explained how the market in the valley is changing by large corporations coming into Medford and the size of their budgets as compared to Ashland's. He noted the importance of getting involved in the Portland market and that $225,000 is not adequate for the VCB to promote and compete. Katherine Flanagan/110 E Main Street/President of the Visitor Convention Bureau and Marketing Director CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3. 2008 Page S of 11 for the Ashland Chamber of Commerce. She explained how the VCB is well positioned to the lead the way for tourism promotion in Ashland. She noted the various representatives and members of the VCB and how they depend on the VCB for promotion efforts. She also noted the existing successful events and those in the future. She read quotes from a letter of support from Carolyn Hill who is the CEO of Southern Oregon Visitors Association (SOVA). The quotes shared how a healthy Visitor and Convention Bureau can give Ashland a competitive advantage and position as an important tourist destination. Increased funding in the VCB will allow them to participate in meaningful and regional marketing programs and allow them to play a role in Travel Oregon and other programs. She noted the partnership between VCB and SOYA. Public Hearing closed: 8:15 p.m. Mayor Morrison asked for the council to share their positions on the proposed increase. Councilor Hardesty supported the 2% increase and understands the value of giving VCB more money. She felt that the $225,000 is appropriate and that consideration on giving more next year could happen. She also noted how small grants have been helpful and are important in the Economic & Cultural area and in tourism area. Councilor Navickas voiced his support of the 2% increase and is an opportunity to invest in Economic & Cultural development. He supports the council's direction in distribution and noted how small grantees have developed over the years. He felt that small grass root efforts are important and how other organizations have helped stimulate our economy. Councilor Chapman voiced his support of the increase only if it could be more specific on how the money is spent. He voiced his concern with the distribution. He noted the budget of $400,000 on Visioning and wouldl not support the increase until the distribution is better worked out. Councilor Jackson voiced her support of the 2% increase and is happy to start with councils adopted distribution. She suggested that the Chamber continue to reach out to small grantees for a partnership with tourism dollars. She felt that the definition of what is a small grant should be worked out. Councilor Silbiger voiced his hestitancy about raising the TOT but noted the support from businesses and a lack of oppositon. He agreed that the allocation is not specific enough and is not comfortable with proposals in terms of being specific. He does believe that the VCB does a good job and has witnessed how the small grantees have benefited and grown. If the council would go in this current direction he would suggest allowing the Chamber of Commerce to particpate in grant funding for specific events. He stated that there is a lot of cross pollination between small grantees that is not just tourism or cultural, but both. He feels that it is the 30% driving the 70% and that it is the council's goal to increase Economic Development. He voiced his support of focusing on specifics and the economic portion of this. Councilor Hartzell stated her initial hesitancy on the percentage increase but became more comfortable once she became more aware of numbers from around the area. She understands the logic in using the current economic development engine to figure out what comes next and to add to it. She believes that this change came about, in order for us as a community to do this, not as a City and this is the challenge. Until there is a Economic Development planning there is an "unkown" and is important to start. She does believe that there are specifics and that the plan is only for a couple of years and that the outcome will point to projects where there is community agreement on. She hoped that the Housing Trust Fund would have been included due to its tie to economic development and urged the council to include this for discussion purposes by including as many streams as possible. Council consensus was in supporting the 2% TOT increase and the concerns regarding specific distribution CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3. 2008 Page 6 of I I was noted. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified that staff would come back to the next council meeting with a Resolution to allocate the funds and if this includes an October 1, 2008 start date another Resolutioh would be done to pro-rate this amount for the year. In addition, if the council includes "qualified city projects" then staff will come back to council on recommendations. She voiced her continued concern with the ability to allocate $109,000 and understands that staff will need to return to council in order to get some of their questions answered. She stated that staff will work with the Apriil 15 council motion unless directed otherwise. Councilor Hartzell suggested creating a separate category for medium sized groups on consideration of awarding grants in the future. Mayor also voiced his concern with $109,000 and understands the need to meet the economic reality of current conditions. He understands that there is support for using this money for existing efforts and the VCB due to the competitive environment. He does believe that there needs to be an Economic Study where it is based on diversification and understanding our community better. Ms. Bennett clarified that the council needs to decide on the increase, which the proposed ordinance would do and then staff would bring back a Resolution for discussion on distribution. Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell m/s to increase TOT by 2% increase effective October 1 2008. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas complimented the Chamber of Commerce for organizing a unified message and challenged the council to attend the Mid Summer Nights Dream that is going to be held and noted the need for the increase in the TOT that helps support smaller grantees. Councilor Jackson voiced her support of the current distribution because there has always been more requests for the Economic Grants than can be funded. She also agrees that being more specific on the amounts between tourism and the Economic grants. Councilor Silbiger voiced his hesitancy to vote in favor before having the opportunity to discuss qualified city projects and how to handle small tourism grants. He would prefer to wait for the Resolution and does believe in the need to visit with the Chamber, middle sized groups and work out qualified city projects with a long- term plan. He stated he would join the council in supporting the proposed increase as long as there is more discussion in the future on the flexibility where tourism dollars are used. Councilor Hartzell requested that when staff brings back a list of qualified city projects, she would like for staff to talk to Planning Commissioin about the last time the Downtown Plan was discussed and parking signage. Roll Call Vote: Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty, Hartzell and Jackson, YES; Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Councilor Jackson/Hartzeztl m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and move to second reading. Roll Call Vote: Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty, Hartzell and Jackson, YES; Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Annual Budget and make appropriations as presented? Lee Tuneberg Administrative Services Director noted the revisions as recommended to council by staff. He pointed out an increase in the Airport fund of $38,3000; an increase of $36,500 in the Capital Improvement Plan; an increase of $4,400 in the Electric Fund Debt Service for the clean renewable energy bonds (CREB); and an increase of $33,200 in the Central Service Fund to correct for a reduction in staff taken twice in the prior revisions. With the results of these changes the total budget amount is $95,206,615 and a proposed property tax rate of $4.0797. This covers the General Fund and Parks Fund general levy, .13 cents on the Library levy and a certain amount that is in the budget itself on the Debt Service that was approved. This CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3. 2008 Page 7 of I I amounts to a total $4.4179 property tax rate. He clarified that there are four actions that the council needs to act on which are the following: approve an Ordinance to levy taxes, approve Resolution to qualify for State Subventions, approve Resolution to receive State Revenues, and approve Resoluition adopting annual budget and making appropriations. He explained that due to the action taken on the TOT an adjustment to the appropriation level in the General Fund on monies to be spent per the higher tax rate for Transient Occupancy Tax needs to be done. He stated that there is funds included for the Visioning or Economic Development program but there has been no change in the grant area. The worksheets provided for the TOT showed $436,000 more in revenue if the tax is done July 1, 2008 but with the delay start date on the TOT tax to October 1, 2008 there may be an estimate of $250,000 more in tax revenue for the next year. Because there is $200,000 in the Administration budget for projects he would recommend increasing appropriations in the General Fund by the difference. Staff clarified that this would be done by Resolution for council approval. Councilor Hartzell voiced her concern with the cuts in the Fire Department budget and fire inspections that are not going to be done. Ms. Bennett explained that the Fire Department is spending 98-99% of their budget level and to sustain a $107,000 budget cut they would have to cut the position they spoke of at the Budget meeting, which was the Fire Inspector position. She explained that staff is looking at the revenue side to see if there could be an increase of fees and charges but the problem is charging for something that may not happen. Ms. Bennett explained that two of the city's unions had agreed to transition from current health care plan to the preferred provider plan which will save the city a significant amount and would accrue to the departments. Council continued to discuss with staff the cuts associated with different departments and how city services are affected. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the council has the authority through Oregon Budget Law to either increase any fund by $5,000 or 10%, whichever is the greater. This would mean increasing appropriation which would then affect the ending fund balance. Ms. Bennett continued to explain what happens when staff positions become vacant and how departments are hesitant to fill positions that may be cut in the future. Staff explained to council how funding could be done through a supplemental budget and their desire to find new revenue streams that have not currently been identified. Council discussed at length the budget process and how the Budget Committee had full discussion on their recommendation. There was concern raised with making changes to ending fund balances and doing something different than what was approved by the Budget Committee even if some councilors did not agree with this decision. It was pointed out that Oregon Budget Law does allow the council to make changes and that it is not unusual for this to happen. Continued concern was voiced that buildings were not being inspected and it was not responsible for the city to allow this to happen. Mr. Tuneberg clarified that the city may receive monies from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) but the amount is uncertain. Ms. Bennett stated that because positions have not been filled does not mean that service levels are not being met. Staff agreed to keep the council updated on the current transitions and will bring back alternatives when identified. Council members voiced concern on taking money out of the ending fund balance but also acknowledged the importance of inspecting buildings and the safety issues associated. It was agreed that looking for other revenue streams is a good idea and that departments should be allowed to manage their budgets when faced with cuts. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Resolution #2008-15. Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Hardesty, Chapman and Jackson, YES; Hartzell and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-2. e CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3, 2008 Page 8 of 11 2. Should Council certify that the City qualifies for State Subventions? Councilor Jackson/Hardesty m/s to approve Resolution #2008-15. Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Chapman, Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson and Navickas, YES. Motion passed. 3. Should Council declare that the City receive State revenues? Councilor Silbiger/Hardesty m/s to approve Resolution #2008-14. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Jackson, Chapman, Hardesty, Silbiger and Navickas, YES. Motion passed. Continuation on adoption of FY2009 Budget discussion and First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2008 to and including June 30, 2009, such taxes in the sum of $8,616,000 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" and move to Second Reading on June 17, 2008? Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and move to second reading. DISCUSSION: Jackson commented that she would not vote against the budget but feels that the approach to providing quality service to the community should be on how to retain these positions not how to avoid using property tax authority and is very disappointed in the Budget Committee this year and hopes to have further community discussion. Councilor Hardesty felt that the Budget Committee did a good job and that it is difficult to weigh the pros and cons and that keeping taxes modest is a good way to run our city and that there are ways to economize. Councilor Navickas commented in his disappointment on the decisions made by the Budget Committee, one of which he felt was a policy decision to maintain fund balances. He voiced his concern with continued cuts to ending fund balances, which has the potential to effect emergency situations. He does not feel this is a fiscal conservative policy but a fiscal irresponsible policy. Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Hartzell, Chapman, Hardesty and Jackson, YES; Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. PUBLIC FORUM Art Bullock/Announced that a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) case, regarding development on Glenn Street that had been filed by himself, Philip Lang and Colin Swales had been won against the City of Ashland. He stated that this was a difficult development and had required five months of council review time. He stated that LUBA had found that the City had violated its own law and remanded it back to the council. He voiced his appreciation to those councilors who had voted against this project. He stated his belief that the council is under heavy pressure from developers and consultants to bend the law in favor of developers and their interests. He also noted his appreciation to those members on the Planning Commission who voted to support the law in the public's interest and looks forward to the day when the majority votes in this direction. He stated that those that had appealed had asked that this be dealt with through alternative dispute resolution which was denied and which then resulted in unnecessary expense to the taxpayers. City Attorney Richard Appicello responded to Mr. Bullock's explanation of the LUBA decision. He explained that the reason why this was remanded back to the City was that there was a request for an exception on Street Standards. The exception to Street Standards was to have a curbside sidewalk in lieu of a parkrow. LUBA found that the Findings and Conclusions did not find demonstrable difficulty in meeting the requirement to build a parkrow to justify an exception to Street Standards to build a sidewalk. This is the only issue LUBA found with the appeal and is why it was sent back to the City. The council will be asked to look at the question of whether the applicant wants to proceed with a curbside sidewalk or a parkrow. It could be that the city should not have granted the exception to the parkrow and this is the only issue and does not include the set back or design standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3. 2008 Page 9 of I I UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Should the Council approve the public safety dispatch contract with the City of Medford as proposed? Police Chief Terry Holderness presented the staff report where he explained that the City had entered into an agreement with the City of Medford in 2003 to supply dispatch services to the police and fire department. This contact has expired and the City of Medford has offered a five-year extension of the contract. The contract does include an approximate 18% increase, which provides for the City of Ashland to be responsible for paying 25% of the total costs for dispatch services. The City of Medford has never charged the City of Ashland full price and that this is the first full year that Ashland will experience full charges. Chief Holderness assured the council that the service level being provided, which is 24/7 with one dispatcher dedicated to the City of Ashland, is sufficient and meets the needs of the City. He explained that Jackson County is now using grant funding to conduct a study on the feasibility of consolidating all public safety dispatch services in the county, which is the long-term goal. He felt the five- year contract protects the city and moves in the direction of consolidation. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve public safety dispatch contract. Roll Call Vote: Chapman, Hartzell, Jackson, Navickas, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed. 2. Will Council revise City policies and practices to forma Transportation Commission and disband the Traffic Safety Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission? Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented the staff report and stated that the combination of these two Commissions has been a goal for quite a few years. He explained that both Commissions are different by having different duties and responsibilities, but do overlap in several areas. He noted that in the past, there had been broad objections to the combining of these two Commissions but more recently it has changed to more broad support. He commented that most of the support comes from recognized transportation issues that are not being addressed in any other Commission or Committee. Mr. Olson stated that staff has met several times with Commission members to discuss ideas and identify key goals that should be included in the Transportation Commission. He stated that safety is the number one aspect and is the primary element. Staff is recommending that part of the duties and responsibilities associated with safety be delegated to a sub- committee of the Transportation Commission in order to have a better flow and delegation on issues that have a higher safety interest to the full Commission. He explained that Planning is another element that this Commission would need to look at and proposed that general recommendations would be made to the City on long-term transportation plans. He stated that funding would be the ability to prioritize and provide long-term development plan for transportation and transit projects. Mr. Olson stated that advocacy would be an important role that this Commission would need to assume and noted that parking is another key element that would need to be addressed. Staff looked at different configurations on the matter of how many voting members should be on this Commission and recommended nine voting members. It is understood that this is a draft ordinance that is being presented and that this is only a starting point in order to begin discussion. Matt Warshawsky/821 Indiana/Voiced his support for the Commission but also voiced his concern that this Commission not be used as a method for individuals to impede or affect regular planning issues. He stated that advocacy is an issue of why this has failed previously. He pointed out that the two big events that are associated with the Bike & Pedestrian Commission, the Bike Swap and Car Free Day are actually run by two volunteers along with the Parks & Recreation Department. He believes that the Bike & Pedestrian Commission may not have as much advocacy as believed, and that the Transportation Commission should CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3, 2008 Page 10 of I I support advocacy but not necessarily be the advocates. Colin Swales/461 Allison/Noted that he is the current chair of Traffic Safety Commission and liaisons with the Bike & Pedestrian Commission. Mr. Swales stated that his comments are personal and does believe that there is some synergy between the two Commissions. He believes that since the Planning Commission has decided to take out of their role, the transportation issue, there is a big hole in overall planning. He voiced his support for the joint Commission and that it is broad enough to attract interest from the members of the community along with the advantage of cost savings associated with city staff time. He suggested that all the Commissions should have the same term limits in order for equality between Commissions. Art Bullock/He stated that the Transportation Commission could be successful if the following three issues are resolved: 1) Completion of Transportation Plan, 2) Danger.of "Car Focus" which has been the focus by the Traffic Safety Commission and Bike & Pedestrian is more "multi modal" focused which may be an issue if these two Commissions are combined; and 3) Advocacy. He felt that the Traffic Safety Commission is a reactive Commission as compared to proactive, planning or advocacy areas. Mr. Bullock stated there needs to be leadership in establishing bus service, bike lanes and making Ashland more walk able. City Attorney explained that the version in the packet provided to the council did not include language associated with term limits as noted by Mr. Swales and that under the Powers and Duties of the sub-committee, staff had taken out the reference to pre-application conferences on planning actions. Staff changed language to include more long-range planning which would allow comments, suggestions and concerns to the Planning Commission on City of Ashland Transportation Plans and Programs with emphasis on long-range and regional plans. He also explained that in terms of membership, there are 13 ex officio members and that staff had removed the City Attorney and the Municipal Judge. The reason for removal of the Judge as a member was that it would place the Judge in a position of recommending legislature where the judge would have to then enforce and would create a conflict. Mr. Appicello explained that he had sent these changes out to the council by email earlier that day. He clarified that there was no reference to long-term planning in the proposed ordinance language and charged the Traffic Hearing sub-committee to make recommendations to the full Transportation Commission on long-range transportation plans. It was questioned why the sub-committee would be called the Traffic Hearing sub-committee rather than Transportation Planning sub-committee and concern was raised about the Planning aspect. Mr. Appicello explained that one of the charges of the sub-committee would be to consider recommendations on safety issues. Mr. Olson explained that the goal was to eliminate some of the extra excess hours of time that the Commission spends on minor issues. Mr. Appicello explained that the full Commission would still have planning duty and responsibility but what was removed was the pre-application process. Council agreed that there was a need for further discussion and staff was directed to schedule a Study Session. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (continued) 5. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance relating to delegation of duties to the City Administrator for acceptance of interest in real property and the renewal of intergovernmental agreements and amending AMC Chapter 2.28" and move to Second Reading on June 17, 2008? City Attorney Richard Appicello read the title in full. Interest was noted on having periodic lists provided to the council on what has been approved. Staff suggested that language be added to include a review every two years. CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3, 2008 Page !1 ojl! Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve first reading of ordinance with amendent to include review every two years and move to second reading of ordinance. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced his relunctance to approve and that it was important that the council retain this type of authority of review. Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty, Chapman and Jackson, YES; Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 4. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance and approve adoption of the Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance concerning special [arteriall setbacks and associated street standards adopted in Ordinance 2836"? Councilor Hardesty noted the handout she had provided to council and staff and asked that these issues be addressed prior to any further discussion. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Jackson stated that she would like work to begin on the Transportation Commission. City Administrator Martha Bennett suggested inviting the Bike & Pedestrian, Traffic Safety and Planning Commission members to the Council Study Session for their input. Ms. Bennett stated that any input that can be provided to the staff prior to this meeting would be helpful. Councilor Navickas commented that he was not sure on his support of combining these two Commissions and likes the idea of a Bike & Pedestrian Commission that works specifically on bike and pedestrian issues. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 2, 2008 Community Development/Engineering Services Building- 51 Winburn Way- Siskiyou Room Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Terry Skibby, Henry Baker, James Watkins, Allison Renwick, Keith Swink, Alex Krach, Sam Whitford, Tom Giordano (left meeting at 6:35pm) Absent Commission Members: None Council Liaison: Eric Navickas High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner: Angela Barry; Clerk: Billie Boswell SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER - SPECIAL MEETING At 5:30 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the Historic Commission special meeting to order. Discussion of the nominees for the Historic Preservation awards resulted in the following selections. Historic Preservation Award Winners: 1. Historically Compatible New Commercial -150 Lithia Street 2. Historically Compatible Commercial Restoration - 264 Fourth Street 3. Historically Compatible Civic - 175 North Main Street 4. Historically Compatible New Residential - 155 Susan Lane 5. Historically Compatible New Accessory Structure - 253 Almond Street 6. Historically Compatible Residential Addition - 762 B Street 7. Individual - George Kramer REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING At 7:10 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the regular Historic Commission meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Watkins moved to approve the minutes of the March 5, 2008 meeting. Mr. Baker seconded the motion and they were approved unanimously. Mr. Whitford abstained because he was absent from the meeting. PUBLIC FORUM: Huels, Wellspring Resort, Hwy 99, spoke concerning the colored concrete being used in the historic districts. He felt it should be grey rather than the earthtone he has seen. Chairman Shostrom and Mr. Skibby explained that they had requested a toned down, more historic looking color rather than the white-grey color being used. The Public Works department chose the buff (tan) color. They also pointed out that the strong color fades very quickly to more readily match the older sidewalks. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 1 61WO08 CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC HEARING: A. Planning Action 2008-00338 Subject Property: 600 Siskiyou Blvd. Owner/Applicant: Laura Bixby Fox Description: Request for a Modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for the establishment of an office use for the property located at 600 Siskiyou. No physical alterations to the site are proposed. Chairman Shostrom read the description and verified there were no conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Ms. Barry explained that the original Conditional Use permit required a CUP if the tenants changed. She said staff supports eliminating this condition and allowing a tenant change if the new use is applicable to the R-2 zone's regular or conditional uses. There were no exterior changes to the building being proposed. There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, Chairman Shostrom closed the public hearing. Mr. Whitford moved to recommend approval and it was seconded by Mr. Skibby. The motion passed unanimously. B. Planning Action 2008-00355 Subject Property: 140 Central Ave Owner/Applicant: Lois Van Aken Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a two-unit Travelers Accommodation for the property located at 140 Central Avenue. The application also includes a Variance request to not pave the existing driveway off of Central Avenue due to the proximity of the driveway improvements to a large Cedar tree. Chairman Shostrom read the description and asked if there were conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Mr. Swink said he knows the owner but felt he could be impartial. Ms. Barry explained the second unit was legal non-conforming and the owner would live in it. The two-unit Traveler's Accommodations would be in the main house in front. A variance was requested to not pave the driveway in order to preserve the tree. There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, Chairman Shostrom closed the public hearing. Mr. Krach felt that the residential nature of the neighborhood was being diluted more and more by transient housing and recommended it be denied. Mr. Skibby said he was OK with it because the historic natures of the structures were usually better preserved than as rentals. Ms. Renwick and Mr. Swink both felt some concern but commented that it's hard to tell owners what they can or can't do with their properties. Mr. Krach said he felt it also affected the livability of the neighborhood. Mr. Baker moved to approve the project as submitted. Mr. Swink seconded the motion. Mr. Watkins pointed out that B & B's tend to revert back to single family homes after a few years. Mr. Krach still felt strongly that it would negatively impact the neighborhood. By consensus the Commissioners felt the policy issue of transient housing within the historic neighborhoods should be handled as a separate issue. The original motion was approved by majority vote, 5 for and 3 against. Mr. Krach then made a motion stating the Historic Commission, as a body, wanted to articulate to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the policy allowing transient housing in the historic district's residential neighborhoods had a deleterious effect, contributed to a shortage of rental housing, diminished the sense of place and created a more commercial presence. Mr. Whitford seconded the motion. The motion was approved by majority vote, 5 for and 3 against. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2 6/3/2008 CITY OF -ASHLAND OLD BUSINESS A. Building Permit #2007-01764 Subject Property: 160 Heiman Owner: James Batzer Ms. Barry explained that the building plans submitted for approval contained some significant design changes from what was approved by the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission on the planning action. Staff was recommending they apply for a modification, but suggested the applicants first get feedback from the Historic Commission on the proposed changes. Some of the changes included: • Windows - different sizes and numbers of • Material types are different • 3rd story step-back eliminated • Roof - pitch is steeper • Balcony changed to interior floor space • Door sizes changed James Batzer, owner and Mark McKechnie, architect, were surprised at staff concerns because theyfelt they had "substantial compliance' with the approved planning action. They detailed why some of the changes were made. Chairman Shostrom said he had spent several hours reviewing and comparing the two sets of plans and found significant differences. Besides the obvious changes in details and materials, the entire bulk and scale had increased. He also requested the plans be at least 1/4 inch equals one foot scale and that the Commission needed details showing wall sections, windows and trim, exterior relief, roof overhangs, eaves, and parapets. There was consensus among the Commissioners that the redesigned building plans were not acceptable. B. Review Board Schedule April 3` Keith, Keith, Dale April 10 Terry, Alex, Sam Aril 17 Terry, Henry, Allison Aril 24 Terry, Jim, Dale May 15 Terry, Tom, Allison May 8 Terry, Keith, Jim C. Project Assignments For Planning Actions - No assignments were made because the two new actions reviewed did not include any exterior changes. PA #2004-138 234 Vista St Sid & Karen DeBoer Upper Poolhouse Permit Expired) Swink PL#2005-01226 820 "C" Street Rand & Helen Ellison (Temp C of O issued Shostrom PL#2005-01674 11 First St Ron Yamaoka (under construction)) Skibby PL#2005-02105 145 EMain/150 Lithia W (Urban Dev Serv/SERA Arch) (No Struc final) Giordano/Baker PL#2005-01307 125 Sherman Street Russ Dale Under construction Shostrom PA#2006-00453 175 North Main First Methodist Church Remodel (Complete) Swink PA#2006-00612 160 Heiman Batzer-Comm Bldc, Us New eld A recd-in review Shostrom/Giordano PA#2006-01999 25 N Main Street Sandler - Masonic 3` St Addn No Bldg Permit Krach PA#2007-00398 237 Almond Street Don Sever -ARU (Under Construction Whitford PA#2007-00798 80 Wimer Street Thomas Petersen - Kitchen Addition) (Complete) Watkins PA#2007-00579 485 A St (Hoxmeier-Mixed Use) (No structural final) Baker Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 3 6/3/2008 C I T Y Of ASHLAND PA#2007-01400 542 A St (Gremmels/Delgado - Rebuild Shed (Permit in review) Skibby D. Historic Preservation Week "This Place Matters - Mr. Watkins and Ms. Renwick requested a sample of last year's winners' information be sent out. Mr. Swink said he would also do a Railroad District walking tour immediately following the Award Ceremony. Ms. Boswell said the deadline forthe winner's "blurbs" is Monday, April 2151 E. Parks Archive Proiect - Mr. Swink said he would contact the Parks Department and set up the tour. F. Lithia Springs National Register Nomination - Commissioners reviewed the draft gun club lease. There were concerns about the hazardous materials section. They believe clean up dollars should be collected prior to 2019. Mr. Baker said he feels the gun club is no longer an appropriate use for the property. The Commissioners agreed the property should be registered as a historic site. G. Single Family Residential Design Standards - No report H. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - No report DISCUSSION ITEMS - Ms. Barry reviewed the Arterial Setback Ordinance with the Commissioners. There was consensus for support of the changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Historic Commission meeting will be on May 7, 2008 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 4 6/3/2008 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER -Chair Laurie Sager called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. on May 8, 2008 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Laurie Sager Russ Silbi er, Absent Kelly Cruser John Rinaldi Jr. Staff Present Zane Jones Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Anne Rich, Parks Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 8, 2007 Tree Commission Minutes - Rinaldi/Jones m/s to approve the minutes of November 8, NOT Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of November 8, 2007 were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM None present TYPE I REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00597 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1338 Seena Lane APPLICANT: Melanie Mindlin DESCRIPTION: Request for a Lot Line Adjustment and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the structural alteration and intensification of use of an existing non-conforming structure for the properties located at 1338 Seena Lane. An existing shed is located approximately three feet from the east property line of Tax Lot 400. With the proposed Lot Line Adjustment, the shed and an attached studio are to be converted to the primary residence on Tax Lot 408, and as part of a primary residence the shed's existing three-foot setback becomes non-conforming. The required side yard setback for a primary residence is six feet. The shed portion of the building is to remain as unheated space, and is not proposed to be remodeled. An 80-square foot bathroom and kitchen addition will be made to the existing 528-square foot studio; the existing studio and the proposed addition comply with required setbacks. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 10 BB: TAX LOTS: 400 and 408 Recommendations: 1) Avoid driplines of all trees along East property line. If areas within the driplines of the trees will be impacted, all recommendations of the project Arborist shall be implemented. 2) That the electric and phone lines shall be routed to avoid any of the existing trees. 3) That tree protection plans in accordance with 18.61.200 shall be submitted with the building permit submittals for new single-family residence construction. The tree protection plans shall be installed and inspected prior to site disturbance. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00598 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 489 Russell Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Donna L. Andrews DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval for a two-story, mixed use building located at 489 Russell St., comprised of office space on the ground floor and two residential units on the second floor. The proposed building is approximately 5,579 square feet in size. The property is located in the Detail Site Review Zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E- I; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 09 AA; TAX LOT: 2804 Recommendations: 1) Where possible consider a larger stature street tree more suited for the urban environment. 2) That a hardy tree species, which can withstand the trash/recycle, fire hydrant cabinets, etc. shall be planted in the parking lot island. DISCUSSION ITEMS Arterial Setback Ordinance modifications: Tree Commission memo to Planning Manager, Maria Harris re. concerns about adopting specific language requiring Structural Soil as part of the street standards for public sidewalk installation in commercial zones. Hersey Street trees: Commission would like to be included in discussions about proposed removals, and re-install choices. Maintain as many healthy trees as possible. Backpage Articles: Rinaldi writing article about Bird of Paradise tree at Railroad Park on A Street. Tree Walks: Anne Rich planning a Tree Walk for June date TBD Budget: Purchase canopy tent preferably with sides to protect from weather & ISA Handouts Current Balance - $303.24 ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Sager adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES March 6, 2008 CALL TO ORDER -Chair Laurie Sager called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on March 6, 2008 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Laurie Sager Russ Silbiger, Absent Kell Cmser John Rinaldi Jr. Staff Present Zane Jones Am Anderson, Assistant Planner Anne Rich, Parks Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 8, 2007 Tree Commission Minutes - Rinaldi/Jones m/s to approve the minutes of November 8, 2007. Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of November 8, 2007 were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM None present PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00035 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 938 Oak St. APPLICANT: Cleo Smith DESCRIPTION: Request for a Minor Land Partition to create two lots for a property located at 938 Oak Street.. Exception to Street Standards to match new sidewalk to existing sidewalk. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5-; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391 E04BD; TAX LOT: 1000 Recommendations: 1) That the revised landscaping, tree protection plan and arborist report for the health of the Walnut tree shall be submitted for the re-review of the tree commission prior to the submission of the final survey plat. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura DESCRIPTION: Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 LE 08 AC; TAX LOT: 201 Recommendations: 1) That at the time of building permit application for the individual lots, if a tree that has been previously approved for removal due to its location within an approved building envelope, said tree(s) shall be mitigated for on the subject lot prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residence. 2) That the applicant shall address the mistletoe in the Oak trees on the property and the project Arborist shall recommend process and amount of future mistletoe removal on the subject property. Current Balance - $303.24 ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Intergovernmental Agreement/Sobering Unit Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Terry Holdemess Department: Police E-Mail: Holdemet@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Tuneberl@ashl and. onus Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: consent Question: Should the Council approve the Intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County to pay $5300.00 to use the county sobering unit? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council vote to approve the intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County as proposed. Background: Jackson County operates a sobering unit for intoxicated persons in the City of Medford. The police department presently contracts with Jackson County to use the sobering unit to lodge intoxicated persons. During the first eleven months of this budget year the Ashland Police Department transported 113 intoxicated persons to the sobering unit. The cost of this agreement was included in the police departments' budget. Related City Policies: None Council Options: The Council my either approve the intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County or direct the police department to discontinue use of the sobering unit. Potential Motions: I make a motion to approve the proposed intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County for use of the county sobering unit by the Ashland Police Department. Attachments: Copy of the intergovernmental agreement for use of the Jackson County sobering unit. Page I of 1 CC-IGA sobering unit INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND THIS IS AN AGREEMENT entered into this first day of July 2008, by Jackson County (County) and the City of Ashland (Ashland). A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 1. In accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of ORS Chapter 190, entitled INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, the County is authorized to enter into a written agreement with any other unit of local government for the performance of any or all functions or activities that a party to the agreement has authority to perform. By acceptance of this agreement Ashland certifies that it meets the above criteria for eligibility for such cooperation with the County. 2. As a result of this Agreement and pursuant to ORS 190.030, any unit of local goverment, _ consolidated department, intergovernmental entityor administrative officers designated herein - to perform specified functions or activities is vested with all powers, rights and duties relating to those functions and activities that are vested by law in each separate party to the Agreement, its officers and agencies. B. BACKGROUND County funds a sobering unit at 338 N Front Street, Medford, Oregon. Ashland has requested to use said sobering unit services. County is willing to offer use of the services on the terms set forth herein. COOPERATION AND SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED 1. County will continue to either operate or subcontract for the operation of the sobering unit at the site indicated twenty four hours a day, seven days a week for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. 2. Ashland shall pay County $5,300 total for the period July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009 to use County's sobering unit services. Payment is a lump sum amount; it is not a per capita rate. " Payment in full shall be due no later than September 30, 2008. Upon Ashland's request, County shall submit an invoice to Ashland reflecting the amount due. Ashland shall have 30 days from the date of the invoice to tender payment in the amount requested. 3. Ashland, through it police department, shall transport individuals in its custody to the sobering unit site. County will hold such individuals and release them according to standard protocol. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND Page I of 3 4. Ashland shall comply with all applicable confidentiality laws, including but not limited to ORS 179.505, Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act and 42 USC 290dd-2. 5. INDEMNIFICATION Ashland shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend County, and pay for, any claims relating to the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, agents, or officers related to taking into custody and transporting individuals to the County sobering unit. 6. APPROPRIATION FOR FUNDING Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement to the contrary, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated for performing this Agreement, and the County has no other lawfully available funds, County may t'Tminat.- this Agreement at the end of its current fiscal year, with no further liability or penalty to Ashland. County shall deliver written notice to Ashland of such termination pursuant to the terms set forth in section 7. 7. TERMINATION 7.1. Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. 7.2. For Cause. County may terminate or modify this Agreement in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Ashland or at such later date as may be established by County if County funding from federal, state, or other sources is not obtained or continued at current levels of services. - 7.3. For Default or Breach. Either County or Ashland may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. 8. CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATION This Agreement may not be amended, changed or modified in any way, except by written agreement signed by all parties. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior oral or written express and/or implied statements, negotiations or agreements between parties, except as otherwise noted herein. This Agreement shall become effective only upon the signature of all parties. Each party, by signature below of it authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that it INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND Page 2 of 3 has read this agreement, understand it and agrees to be bound by it. Each person signing this agreement represents and warrants she or he has the authority to execute it. CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY BY: BY: Title: Title: Date: Date: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND Page 3 of 3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND THIS IS AN AGREEMENT entered into this first day of July 2008, by Jackson County (County) and the City of Ashland (Ashland). A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY I . In accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of ORS Chapter 190, entitled INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, the County is authorized to enter into a written agreement with any other unit of local government for the performance of any or all functions or activities that a party to the agreement has authority to perform. By acceptance of this agreement Ashland certifies that it meets the above criteria for eligibility for such cooperation with the County. 2. As a result of this Agreement and pursuant to ORS 190.030, any unit of local government, consolidated department, intergovernmental entity or administrative officers designated herein to perform specified functions or activities is vested with all powers, rights and duties relating to those functions and activities that are vested by law in each separate party to the Agreement, its officers and agencies. B. BACKGROUND County funds a sobering unit at 338 N Front Street, Medford, Oregon. Ashland has requested to use said sobering unit services. County is willing to offer use of the services on the terms set forth herein. COOPERATION AND SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED I . County will continue to either operate or subcontract for the operation of the sobering unit at the site indicated twenty four hours a day, seven days a week for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. 2. Ashland shall pay County $5,300 total for the period July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009 to use County's sobering unit services. Payment is a lump sum amount; it is not a per capita rate. Payment in full shall be due no later than September 30, 2008. Upon Ashland's request, County shall submit an invoice to Ashland reflecting the amount due. Ashland shall have 30 days from the date of the invoice to tender payment in the amount requested. 3. Ashland, through it police department, shall transport individuals in its custody to the sobering unit site. County will hold such individuals and release them according to standard protocol. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND Page I of 3 4. Ashland shall comply with all applicable confidentiality laws, including but not limited to ORS 179.505, Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act and 42 USC 290dd-2. 5. INDEMNIFICATION Ashland shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend County, and pay for, any claims relating to the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, agents, or officers related to taking into custody and transporting individuals to the County sobering unit. 6. APPROPRIATION FOR FUNDING Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement to the contrary, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated for performing this Agreement, and the County has no other lawfully available funds, County may te,- linat 'this Agreement at the end of its current fiscal year, with no further liability or penalty to Ashland. County shall deliver written notice to Ashland of such termination pursuant to the terms set forth in section 7. 7. TERMINATION 7.1. Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. 7.2. For Cause. County may terminate or modify this Agreement in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Ashland or at such later date as may be established by County if County funding from federal, state, or other sources is not obtained or continued at current levels of services. 7.3. For Default or Breach. Either County or Ashland may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at.any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. 8. CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATION This Agreement may not be amended, changed or modified in any way, except by written agreement signed by all parties. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior oral or written express and/or implied statements, negotiations or agreements between parties, except as otherwise noted herein. This Agreement shall become effective only upon the signature of all parties. Each party, by signature below of it authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that it INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND Page 2 of 3 has read this agreement, understand it and agrees to be bound by it. Each person signing this agreement represents and warrants she or he has the authority to execute it. I CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY BY: BY: _ Title: Title: Date: Date: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Airport Commission Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: Recorder E-Mail: christeb a ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Treg Scott for a term to expire April 30, 2011 to the Airport Commission? Staff Recommendation: None Background: This is a confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment for the Airport Commission on application received. This is a vacancy that was not filled during the annual appointment process. Related City Policies: Resolution 1995-95 states "The voting members of the commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by the City Council." Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointments. Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointment of Treg Scott for a term to expire April 30, 2011 to the Airport Commission. Attachments: Application received Page 1 of 1 061708 Appointment to Airport.CC.doe Ir, CITY OF g~g4~g~ -AS H LAN D C mg, 0 2 W1 PLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO I 20 O CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE BYPiett';eiype or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb(a)ashiand.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name 2KC2, S:7c777' Requesting to serve on:l~z mac. /L T ommissio ommittee) Address Z SC~-7tJ.L 1~,L . Occupation-Ores-/ng:r - nty yL Phone: Home Work J s2f? q / Email T.S C.0 7r P v Fax yf~ 1 - f3 F2 R / 1. Education Backeround What schools have you attended? What degrees do you hold? S• ~c TjG~~ STU.~s~3 What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? i( 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? 7 /-JfF-'+/E `~E1r-1~.✓J ON .~.c.~f~ rc..t~rL.~c-7~ 1Ul TcL Sc ar ~/o ~u cii Er fir- aR11~ Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? 4,/24F ,xf-_ ~r, 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? i4- ~/C L 7 lf~iiJ Os~~X.~-7~L1 Oy i OF i fFr~ eit 2 pca f- OiL S6D ` 2z 1r 44f22M, AlRr:l~n-, c ceA-rux%i72-1 ,-o NztvC dzli /Ty .cc~'2 F.v7~7/o tJ. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition t the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Rxe L 9 ~3 t zc ~Ltz~T Tiwr_ ~ I,C.JI r~ 1/~1-,u iclb-r~ 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position ~IZ- ZOB Date ~-'Signatui- CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Designation of City Administrator as Primary Contact for Annual Audit Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tunebcrl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time:. Consent 11 Question: Shall the city administrator be design ted as the primary person responsible to insure an annual audit is performed per ORS 297? Staff Recommendation: Authorize City Administrator Martha Bennett to sign documents required by the audit firm in regards to the scope and representation of the city audit. Background: Auditor comments from the prior year's audit identified that the City does not have any documentation identifying the staff member charged with ensuring an annual audit is performed per Oregon Statutes. This information was presented to Council in a Study Session on May 19, 2008, and this designation is in keeping with that discussion. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Council can authorize the city administrator to sign documents regarding the city audit on behalf of the city or designate someone else to perform this function. Potential Motions: I make a motion that the City Council authorize the City Administrator to sign documents required by the audit firm in regards to the scope and representation of the city audit. Attachments: None Page I of I • 061708 Contact for Annual Audit.CC.doc CITY OF AS H LAN D Council Communication Q OK A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations Within the 2007-2008 Budget Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Secondary Contact: Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: Consent Question: Should Council approve a resolution adopting a supplemental budget for FY 2007-2008 Budget a third time to create appropriations and authorize expenditure of grants received to purchase firefighter protective clothing and help pay for annual health insurance renewal? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Background: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing. A supplemental budget (Item #2 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2007-2008 budget. Only two adjustments are proposed in this resolution. A transfer of interest earnings from the Cemetery Fund to the General Fund has been delayed to June 30 since that change was greater than 10% of the fund and would require a different notice as identified in step #3 above. This supplemental budget is for the items on the attached resolution, described as follows: A. To recognize a FEMA Homeland Security grant of $33,350 to purchase fire fighter protective clothing. The City will receive $30,315 and a corresponding transfer of appropriations will provide the 10% match of $3,335. B. To recognize a worksite wellness grant of $2,835 form the City's health care provider for support of open enrollment. This is the third supplemental budget request for FY 2007-08. Both prior requests related to the use of forfeiture funds by the Police Department. 1 061708 Supplemental Budget FY08.CC revised ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after each request. Related City Policies: Compliance with Oregon Budget Law Council Options: Council may accept this supplemental budget request as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Potential Motions: I make a motion to approve the attached resolution adopting a supplemental budget for FY 2007-2008 for the purposes specified. Attachments: Resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations within the 2007-2008 budget 2 061708 Supplemental Budget FY08.CC revised RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2007-2008 BUDGET Recitals: ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one or more of the following reasons: a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial planning. b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the budget for the current year which requires prompt action. c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local government and the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the preparation of the budget for the current year. d. Other reasons identified per the statutes. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a supplemental budget, establishing the following additional appropriations: General Fund Appropriation: Fire Department- Material and Services $30,015 Resource: Intergovernmental Revenues $30,015 To recognize a FEMA Homeland Security grant received for Fire Department to purchase protective clothing for the Firefighters. The required 10% contribution as match will be requested via a transfer of appropriations. Central Service Fund Appropriations: Administration - Human Resource $2,835 Resource: Intergovernmental Revenues $2,835 To recognize a worksite wellness grant received from the City health care provider to use for annual open enrollment purposes. Total: Appropriations $32 850 Total: Resources 2 8 0 SECTION 2. All other provisions of the adopted 2007-2008 BUDGET not specifically amended or revised in this Supplemental Budget remain in full force and effect as stated therein. SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of June, 2008: and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2008: John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney CITY OF "U ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Transferring Appropriations Within the FY 2007-2008 Budget Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Finance E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent Question: Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to transfer appropriations within specified funds for stated reasons. Background: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. This process includes a notice in the paper prior to Council taking action. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing prior to the council taking action. A transfer of appropriations (Item #1 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2007-2008 budget for the following reasons: • A Transfer of $3,335 will be needed from General Fund Contingency to the Fire Department, Materials & Services, to provide appropriations to meet the 10% match required from a FEMA Homeland Security grant to purchase protective clothing. The remaining amount of the grant is addressed in a supplemental budget • A Transfer of $40,800 will be needed from Central Service Fund Contingency to the Information Technology Department, Materials & Services, to fund the installation of an air conditioning unit in remodeled work space at 90 North Mountain and software licensing costs. The department's expenditures for these items may still be within the adopted budget but total expenditures are too close for comfort, thus the recommended transfer to reduce the potential for a budget law violation. Page 1 of 2 061708 Transfer of Appropriations FY08.CC.doc CITY OF ASHLAND This is the second transfer of appropriations request for FY 2007-2008. Two supplemental budgets relating to the use of forfeiture monies by the Police Department were approved earlier in the year and the need for another one by June30 is expected. Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after each request. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Council may accept this transfer of appropriations as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Potential Motions: Council moves to adopt the transfer of appropriations resolution, amending the FY 2007-2008 budget. Attachments: Resolution transferring appropriations within the 2007-2008 Budget Page 2 of 2 061708 Transfer of Appropriations FY08.CC.doe ~r, RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2007-2008 BUDGET THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer appropriations as follows: General Fund To: Fire Department $3.335 From: General Fund - Contingency $3,335 To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Fire and Rescue Material and Services to meet the requirement of a FEMA grant for purchasing protective clothing for the firefighters, the City of Ashland must contribute 10% of the costs. Central Service Fund To: IT - Computer Services $40,800 From: Central Service Fund - Contingency $40,800 To Transfer appropriations from Central Service Fund - Contingency to IT Computers Services Division to cover a new air conditioner unit and licensing costs. Total To: Department Appropriations 44 135 Total From: Contingency 44135 SECTION 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2008: and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2008: John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Council Appeal PA2008-00182, 500 Strawberry Ln. Outline Plan Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Derek Severson Department: Planning E-Mail: seversodPashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: N/A Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Martha Benn)4~., Estimated Time: 60 minutes L" I VV Question: Should the City Council grant a request for Outline Plan approval of a six-lot, five unit Performance Standards subdivision which includes a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project? Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission approved the request for Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a six-lot, five-unit residential subdivision. Staff supports the decision of the Planning Commission, including the nine attached conditions, as stated in the findings. Background: On February 8, 2008, Robert and Laura McLellan filed the application for Outline Plan approval for a six-lot, five-unit residential subdivision at 500 Strawberry Ln. A public hearing to consider the Outline Plan application was conducted before the Planning Commission on March 11, 2008. At the conclusion of the hearing, one of the parties, neighbor Catherine Dimino, requested that the record be held open for seven days. The applicants requested an additional seven days to respond to additional written arguments, and the Planning Commission to hold the record open as requested and continued their deliberations to the April 8, 2008 meeting. At the April 8, 2008 meeting, the Commission deliberated and approved the application with nine conditions. The findings were reviewed and approved by the Commission at the April 8, 2008 meeting and signed by the Commission Chair on April 9, 2008. A timely appeal was filed by Catherine Dimino on April 28, 2008. The appeal request states that the three grounds for the appeal are: First, the application does not meet lot coverage requirements as specified in 18.16.040, and that the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 does not grant or provide for exceptions. The application proposes to look at lot coverage in terms of the overall coverage proposed for the parent parcel as a whole, rather than for each individual lot. This allows the applicants to cover slightly more than 20 percent on some lots by distributing coverage from the proposed open space lot, which will not be developed in order to protect the more steeply-sloped, Page I of 4 061708 Strawberry Lane Appeal.CC.doc Mme, CITY OF ASHLAND heavily-wooded area of the site. This issue was addressed on page 4 of the Staff Report addendum for the April 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, discussed by the Commission, and a finding made that the Performance Standards Options Chapter provides for more flexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning codes in order to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment, and that this flexibility can be applied to look at lot coverage in terns of the subdivision site as a whole in order to protect natural features of the site while providing for the architectural creativity and innovation that the chapter seeks to encourage. The Planning Commission's approval of the application included the following lot coverage allowance for each of the six lots: Lot #1 - 26 percent Lot #2 - 26 percent Lot #3 - 28 percent Lot #4 - 20 percent Lot #5 - 20 percent Lot #6 - 0 percent (common open space) Second, the requested Exception to Street Standards does not satisfy three of the four criteria required for approval. The approval criteria are: A) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; B) The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C) The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D) The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The appellant indicates that circumstances do not exist to address criteria A, B or C. This issue was addressed on page 7 of the Staff Report for the March 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, discussed by the Commission, and a finding was ultimately made that the installation of full public street improvements including sidewalks would require significant site disturbance along more than 300 feet of the Hitt Road right-of-way in a steeply-sloped and heavily-wooded area which the applicants had proposed to protect as one of the site's natural features. The Commission findings noted that future development of properties to the south is constrained by steep slopes, and that the Exception to Street Standards assists in preserving and protecting the sloped areas on the project site. As part of the application, the applicants proposed to relocate the existing gate on Hitt Road, which limits public access to a city-owned water tank on the property to the south. The gate is to be relocated to accommodate the driveway placement for the proposed Lot 5, and would also provide for the placement of parking and a turn-around area as required by the Planning Commission. The applicants propose to install fire sprinklers in all homes, implement a fire prevention and control plan, and install a new hydrant on Hitt Road to provide for adequate fire protection. Easement access and trail improvements across the southern portion of the subject property were previously Page 2 of 4 061708 Strawberry Lane Appeal.CC.doc CITY OF ASHLAND provided to create a pedestrian link between Hitt Road and Birdsong Lane, and the applicants have agreed to sign in favor of future improvements to Hitt Road and provide a third off-street parking space on each of the lots to accommodate visitor parking demand. The Planning Commission also found that four additional on-street parking spaces needed to be provided by the applicants near the relocated gate and between the driveways of Lots 2 and 4 to ensure adequate fire access within the wildfire interface and to offset the on-street parking spaces that would otherwise have been provided if Hitt Road were fully extended to the south boundary of the proposed development. Third, the building envelope for the proposed Lot I is inconsistent with the intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88. The purpose and intent of the chapter is: "to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood" A building envelope serves to identify the limits of construction disturbance associated with building on a lot; building envelopes must be identified in subdivision applications made under the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The building envelope is a general limit, and lot coverage provides an additional restriction in placing an overall limit on the total amount of covered area including building footprints, driveways, and other covered areas. The building envelope on Lot 1 was addressed on page 4 of the Staff Report addendum for the April 8, 2008, where it was noted that the location of the proposed envelope was intended to minimize the impact to the immediately adjacent neighbor while preserving established mature trees on and adjacent to the project. Additionally, the building envelope location provided for a driveway placement on Lot 1 that resulted in the least slope disturbance in order to minimize the impact to the site and its natural features. The Planning Commission ultimately made a finding made that the building envelopes for the development were proposed at specific locations in order to protect the site's natural features, rather than to protect the views of surrounding property owners. The public hearing is scheduled for the June 17, 2008 Council meeting. The item is time sensitive because the 120-day limit expires on July 1, 2008. Ideally, the hearing would be completed and a decision made at the June 17, 2008 meeting. This would allow preparation of the findings for adoption at the July 1, 2008 meeting. Related City Policies: N/A. Council Options: The Council may approve, approve with modifications and conditions, or deny the application. Page 3 of 4 061708 Strawberry Lane Appeal.CC.doc ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Potential Motions: Move to approve the application for: Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a six-lot, five-unit residential subdivision; Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands; Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger; and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project for the property located at 500 Strawberry Ln. in PA 2008-00182 with the conditions of approval attached by the Planning Commission as stated in the Findings and Orders dated Apri 18, 2008. Move to approve the application for: Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a six-lot, five-unit residential subdivision; Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands; Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger; and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project for the property located at 500 Strawberry Ln. in PA 2008-00182 with modified conditions of approval. Move to deny the application as submitted. Attachments: Record of Planning Action PA 2008-00182, 500 Strawberry Ln. Page 4 of 4 061708 Strawberry Lane Appeal.CC.doc ~r, CITY OF -aAS H LA N D PLANNING ACTION 2008-00182 TABLE OF CONTENTS PLANNING ACTION: #2008-00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Catherine Dimino of the Planning Commission's April 81h decision to grant Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Chapter 18.88 for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also includes requests for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six inches in diameter at beast height (d.b.h,) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391E 08 AC; TAX LOT: 201. Date Item Page # 4128/2008 Notice of Land Use Appeal submitted by Catherine Dimino Public Notice & Criteria, Affidavit of Mailing, Mailing List, Newspaper 1-9 Publication 4111/2008 Notice of Decision 10-11 4/812008 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions & Orders 12-22 4/8/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 23-28 4/8/2008 Aril 8, 2008 Planning Commission Packet Public Notice & Criteria 29-30 Planning Department Staff Report Addendum 31-41 Tree Removal and Protection Plan 42 Materials submitted into the record March 12-19, 2008 43-59 Applicant's response to materials submitted into the record 60-64 6/09/2008 Comments from Debra Allen Kutcher 65 3110/2008 Comments from Catherine & Lou Dimino 66-69 3/612008 Comments from Rodney Scott Dixon & Joan E. Cresse 70-73 3/6/2008 Tree Commission Review 74 Public Hearin Notice 75 1/0712008 Fire Inspection Report 76 Fire Prevention and Control Plan / Erosion Control Plan 77 3/8/2008 Notice of Site Visit 78 Mailing List 79 311112008 Planning Commission Minutes 80-86 3/11/2008 March 11, 2008 Planning Commission Packet Public Notice & Criteria, Mailing List, Newspaper Publication 87-90 Public Hearing Speaker Request Forms 91-93 Staff Report 94-110 Project Description and Findings of Fact, Submitted by Urban 111-174 Development Services Plan Submittals from Urban Development Services 175-184 21412008 Zoning Permit Application 185-187 Notice of Land Use Appeal Ashland Municipal Code 18.108,110.A.2 A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es): . j l'V AS 1i 3S 2. Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal. C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed Date of Decision: Planning Action # Title of planning action: C,S. (-•'~'!S~ i•v~d IL. S, GrI o~ }w~l-r~t ~'1 SYa -y~4 1 D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Part y For each erson listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below. The person named in -Lo I am the applicant. Box A.1. above in I participated in the public hearing before the planning qualifies as a parry commission, either orally or in writing. because: 14~ 1 was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. The person named in 14~j 1 am the applicant. Box A.2. above _ participated in the public hearing before the planning qualifies as a party commission, either orally or in writing. because: um I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. I Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as a art. E. Specific Grounds for Appeal 1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary) A, r. ,p c, •[.+.o',l rt(.t; 11!'"f` /7Z i{ t< } iic-, iL'` R--t[/i. d; ~7,`//f[4. 7.y(• /S. i(-~ !~L <./lf l! /'(-7< z„t.. S ! /c. d'yc,ON6rr5 -/p/ SJ (C.-, Ad AeC Sa,.d/•,~(. C/:/, iss/:..ai da cll. is is an erfdr because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code §/2'~. A.c.1/0 y'~~'or'other law in § requires that attach additional pages if necessary): 2. The second specific ground for which the decision slpould be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): & xcv/)J to tc /n 54u, d~ N Aj P"I C. C, 6- cz ~ w S 4cL s, &:J Elr- is This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § iS3, j j•OSG or other law in § requires that attach additional pages if necessary): 3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): 8w,t[(<«/ t i1 t,4-(ey9 I-e)- iQ / /e.jc0 j7/:r This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code § s, ol.p or other law in § requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): I 4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other law that were violated. Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal I(we) submit the sum of $ 293.00 which is the appeal fee required by § 18.108.110.A of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: ~S r C Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary): 1~1~14.(-.CLL7- Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-6002, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.108.070. 2 99582 CITY OF ASHLAND Received from \ 1\ 1 1 \C' Date For Cash ❑ Check 'rte Account Number Amount Account Number Amount - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --I--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL $ By t 3 Planning Department, 51 Winbi.... Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 G 1 T Y O F 541-488.5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashlend.or.us TTY: 1.800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: #2008.00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Catherine Dimino of the Planning Commission's April &h decision to grant Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also includes requests for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 fE 08 AC; TAX LOT: 201 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: June 171h, 2008, 7.00PM, Ashland Civic Center pA1L0Y .W . ap 3lFAWBEMXY ..Ii ¢OMG 201. . STR WSERRY VC_. ` i Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection Is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no coat and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and time in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall here the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrators office at 541488-8002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-29gO). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments conceming this request please feet free to contact the Ashland Planning Department at 541-488-5305. 4 G^canun devplenninrWOiices M W,200812W8-0 192 Council Ap 16.17.08.do OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.88.030.A Critter' Approval The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when 4 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 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 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. I. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (Ord 2836, S21999) PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.62.040.1 1. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 St, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/0311998, Section 18.62.040 J'deleted'; Ord 2808, Added, 1210211997) TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal • Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. t. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and m 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.88.050 F- Exception to Street Standards An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D.The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. (Ord 2836, Amended, 02/02(1999) 5 G:'comm-clcc planuingWOlka Mni1M 21X)3 W800182 Council Appeal 6.1? .&C APPEAL PROCEEDINGS 18.108.110 Appeal to ncll A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type 11 decisions or of Type III decisions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect. 1, The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellants name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing. 4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing, 5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. 8. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. 'Parties' shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. 6 G?mmmdvvplannins'NOlkn Willd 2WS`IWS-WI82 COUMO Appal 6. 7.M. &C AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On May 28, 2008, 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Public Meeting Notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2008-00182, 500 Strawberry. Signature of Employee SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 28th day of May, 2008. U`rIC1A~ SEAL p~ CAROLYN SCHWENDENER ~'f'"' , ~I NOTARY PuHLIC-OREGON Notaryublic for State of Oregon COMM1SSiUN M0, 390826 My Commission Expires: ,3 -02.0 -O`j MY COMMISSION EXPIRE:: 7.7kR. 20, 2008 "~`-,mac 7 Gdccmm ev%Pla-mgWcrme 9 HantlotSWFIDAVIT OF WILINGA" PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 103 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 107 PA-2008.00182 391E08AC 202 ASHLAND, CITY OF BARNES KENNETH J/SUZANNE H DARLING KAREN PARKS DEPARTMENT 523 STRAWBERRY LN 490 STRAWBERRY LN 340 PIONEER ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 391 E08AC 110 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 506 PA-200 2 DIXON RODNEY SCOTT TRUSTEE ET AL DONOVAN MICHAEL 391CHAEL L J/M JIMARIE E08AC 109 DIMINO LUCI UCIEN A/CATHE /CATHERIN E JOAN E. CRESSE ONO B 423 STRAWBERRY LN 320 HEMLOCK LN ASHLAND OR 97520 838 BLACKBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 111 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 206 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 400 HWOSCHINSKY PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL KNECHT GERALD R TRUSTEE ET AL KUTCHER WILLIAM S/DEBRA A 443 STRAWBERRY LN 114 CALUMET AVE 400 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN ANSELMO CA 94960 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 106 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 209 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 201 LAYSER GAIAIBORGIAS DARREN LOVETT RICHARD PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL MC LELLAN R/LAURA A WRIGHT- 500 PHELPS ST PO BOX 427 500 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 508 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 503 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 203 MCDANIEL JOHN SCOTT OLSON MARGARET J BROWN SHOLEM CONSTANCE W PO BOX 924 TRUSTEE ET AL TRUSTEE ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 1018 NE D ST 121 BIRDSONG LN WASHINGTON DC 20002 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 39IE08AC 205 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 300 PA-2008-00182 391E08DB 200 STEIN GERALD W TRUSTEE ET AL STROM HOWARD E TRUSTEE ET AL TRY-W GROUP LIMITED PARTNER 806 CYPRESS POINT LP 3411 LA FALDA PL 100 S E CRYSTAL LAKE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 LOS ANGELES CA 90068 CORVALLIS OR 97333 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 505 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 504 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 206 WAY ANTHONY E TRUSTEE ET AL WILSON JAY/SUZANNE KNECHT ALEX 400 SHERIDAN ST 71 HOLLINS DR 181 BIRDSONG LN ASHLAND OR 97520 SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2008.00182 391E08AC 201 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 201 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 201 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC LAURIE SAGER MARK KAMRATH ATTN: MARK KNOX 700 MISTLETOE ROAD, UNIT #201 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONS. 700 MISTLETOE ROAD, UNIT #204 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PO BOX 1724 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 201 MARK AMRHEIN 706 JEFFERSON AVENUE ASHLAND, OR 97520-3207 8 ATTN: Nick -CLASSIFIED PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on June 17, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting. Appeal by Catherine Dimino of the Planning Commission's April 8m decision to grant Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also includes requests for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.S-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP 9: 39 1E 08 AC; TAX LOT: 201. in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrators office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). Barbara Christensen City Recorder Publish: 6/11/2008 or asap P. O. No. 75867 E-mailed to Tidings: 6/5/2008 9 CITY OF April 11, 2008 ASHLAND Robert & Laura McLellan 500 Strawberry Ln Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planting Action #2008-00182 Notice of Decision At its meeting of April 8, 2008, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Outline Plan for a six-lot, five-unit Subdivision for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane Assessor's Map # 39 1 E 08 AC; Tax Lot 201. Also included are requests for a Physical Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and an Exception to Street Standards. The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on April 8, 2008. Approval is valid for a period of eighteen months. Please review the attached findings and conditions of approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion. Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winbum Way. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed within 15 days of the date this notice was mailed and with the required fee ($293.00), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.1 10 (A) of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal shall be limited to the following criteria: SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. A. Appeals of Type 1 decisions,/rr which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions at- of Type III decisions described in section 18.108.060.AJ and 1 shall he initiated by a notice gfappeal,/iled frith the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall he required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal bee at the time the appeal i.sJiled is a jurisdictional defect. 1. The appeal shall be,liled prior to the effective date gfthe decision of doe Conuni.csion. 1. The notice shall include the appellants name, address, a reference to the decision sought to he reviettrd, a stareneent as to hots' the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the spec?fc• grounds.for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria ar procedural irregularity. 3. The notice ofappeal, together with notice of the date. time and place of'the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall he mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the !rearing. 4. The appeal shall he a rte novo evidentiary hearing. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541488.5305 20 E. Main Sheet Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland. Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735.2900 w .ashland.orxs 10 5. The Council nu{v affirm, reverse of- modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, Of* grant approval with conditions. The Connell shall make Endings and conclusions. and make a decision based an the record before it as justification liar its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to he sent to all parties participating in the appeal. B. Appeals may only hefled by parties to lire planning action. 'Patties" shall he de fined as the following: 1. The applicant. 1. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally at- in writing. Failure to participate in lire public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development Department between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305. cc: Mark Knox, 700 Mistletoe Rd., Suite 204, Ashland OR 97520 Catherine Dimino, 423 Strawberry Ln., Ashland OR 97520 Alex Knecht, 181 Birdsong, Ashland OR 97520 DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541488-5305 20 E. Main street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735.2900 sssrv.ashland.or.us it BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2008 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2008-00182, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ) OPTIONS CHAPTER (AMC 18.88) FOR A SIX-LOT, FIVE-UNIT SUBDIVISION ) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 STRAWBERRY LANE. ) ALSO INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS • ) REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HILLSIDE LANDS; A ) TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE 13 TREES SIX-INCHES IN ) FINDINGS, DIAMETER OR LARGER, INCLUDING ONE SIGNFICIANT TREE, AN 18-INCH ) CONCLUSIONS OAK; AND AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE ) AND ORDERS APPLICANTS TO END STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DRIVEWAY OF ) THE PROPOSED LOT FIVE RATHER THAN EXTENDING THEM TO THE ) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ) APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 201 of Map 39 I E 08 AC is located at 500 Strawberry Lane and is zoned RR-.5-P Rural Residential. 2) The applicants are requesting Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options are described in Chapter 18.88 as follows: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b) That adequate key Cityfacilities 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 Cityfacility to operate beyond capacity. PA 112008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 1 12 L c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, foodplain 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 a• higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. ,J) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. 4) The criteria for a Physical Constraints Review permit are described in Chapter 18.62.040.1 as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 5) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. PA #2008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 2 13 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow ofsurface waters, protection ofadjacent 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 100 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval of the permit. 6) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in 18.88.050.F as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation.jacilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. PA #2008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 3 14 7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held public hearings on March I I and April 8, 2008 at which times testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to develop a six-lot, five-unit subdivision meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval and an Exception to Street Standards described in Chapter 18.88; that the proposed Physical Constraints Review permit meets all applicable criteria in Chapter 18.62; and that the proposed removal of '13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height or greater, including one significant 18-inch oak, meets all applicable criteria for a Tree Removal permit in Chapter 18.61. The Commission further finds that the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 provides for more flexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning codes in order to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment, and that this flexibility can be applied to look at lot coverage in terms of the subdivision site as a whole in order to protect natural features of the site while providing for the architectural creativity and innovation that the chapter seeks to encourage. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the project 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. Water, sanitary sewer, PA #2008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 4 15 storm water, and electric services are available from the Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road rights- of-way and will connect through the individual lot driveways. Storm drain facilities will include private detention systems on the individual lots. Paved access is available from both Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road. The Planning Commission finds that development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels to the north, east and west are similarly zoned and have recently been subdivided for development as part of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision. The undeveloped properties to the south are zoned WR Woodland Residential, and their further development is already severely constrained by the presence of slopes over 35 percent. The Planning Commission finds the density meets the base density standards established under the Performance Standards Options for the Rural Residential (RR-.S-P) zone. The site has a base density of five units (4.62 acres x 1.2 dwelling units per acre = 5.544 units), including the existing single family home already in place on the proposed Lot 4. The Planning Commission finds that the significant natural features of the property are the existing trees and the steeply-sloped, heavily-wooded slopes on the southern end of the site. The Commission further finds that the proposed lot layout, common area and building envelope placements, and driveway locations have been selected in order to protect these natural features. 59 of the 72 trees do the site over six-inches in diameter at breast height are to be preserved, driveways are to be located in response to the site topography to minimize site and slope disturbances, and the applicants also propose to protect the most steeply sloped southern portion of the site in a commonly owned open space. The Planning Commission finds that the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan provided delineates the proposed building envelopes, setbacks, and driveway locations. The setbacks on the perimeter of the subdivision and for the front yards are required to meet the standard setback requirements of the Rural Residential zoning district, and the proposal meets or exceeds this requirement. The Solar Access Ordinance in AMC Chapter 18.70 requires that newly created lots with north slopes less than 15 percent be configured so that the future homes will meet Solar Setback A, and that those lots with downward trending north slopes in excess of 15 percent meet Solar Setback B. Solar Setback A is the most stringent standard which requires that new structures can not shade the property to the north more than a six-foot fence would at the north property line, and Setback B allows additional shading comparable to that which would be cast by a 16-foot fence. While the lots proposed appear to be sized to accommodate these solar access requirements, the applicants have proposed to place the building envelopes and homes toward the northern portion of the lots and propose Solar Envelopes which do not appear to entirely protect the applicable Solar Access standards with Lots 2 and 5. The Planning Commission finds that the applicable PA #2008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 5 16 Solar Access standards must be protected, and further finds that if the applicants wish to exceed the applicable Solar Access standards, Solar Access Variances will be required to be applied for concurrently with the Final Plan application. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that potential impacts and hazards have been considered and that adverse impacts will be minimized through the proposed subdivision's design and the associated mitigation measures recommended by the project geotechnical expert. The applicants have provided a geotechnical study which concludes that the proposed subdivision and associated site grading are considered to be feasible with respect to the stability of the subsurface and slope conditions observed on site. This report includes recommendations for necessary site preparation, retaining, and erosion control, and proposes an inspection schedule to insure that these recommendations are properly implemented during site work. The more steeply sloped areas at the southern end of the site will be preserved as commonly owned open space, and protected from future development, and development of the proposed Lot 5, which includes slopes in excess of 25 percent within its building envelope, will be subject to a separate Physical Constraints Review. The Commission finds that the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impacts of the development on the environment. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds the request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches or larger in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), including one significant 18-inch d.b.h. oak tree meets the applicable approval criteria in 18.61.080. These trees are located within the proposed building envelopes, and all other trees on site are to be preserved. The Commission finds that the removals have been requested in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards in attempting to minimize site disturbance associated with the subdivision, will not have significant negative impacts, and that the removal of the significant oak will be mitigated whether on- or off site. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project meets the applicable criteria in Chapter 18.88. The installation of the full public street improvements including sidewalks would require that significant site disturbance along more than 300 feet of the Hitt Road right-of-way in a steeply-sloped and heavily- wooded area which the applicants have proposed to protect as one of the site's principal natural features. The future development of properties to the south is constrained by steep slopes, and the Exception requested aids in the preservation and protection of the sloped areas on the project site. An existing gate is in place on Hitt Road to control public access to a city-owned water tank on the property immediately south of the project site, and will be slightly relocated to accommodate the driveway for the proposed Lot 5. The application proposes to ensure adequate fire protection through the installation of fire sprinklers in all homes and the implementation of a fire prevention and control plan, and the applicants will install a new fire hydrant on Hitt Road. The applicants have previously provided easement access and trail improvements across the southern portion of the subject property to provide a pedestrian link between Hitt Road and the nearby Birdsong Lane, and have agreed to sign in favor of any future improvements to Hitt Road. The applicants have PA #2008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 6 17 proposed to provide a third off-street parking space for each of the proposed lots to address visitor parking demand, and the Commission also finds that additional on-street parking spaces should be identified on Hitt Road at the time of Final Plan submittal in order to ensure adequate fire access in the wildfire interface and to off-set on-street parking that would otherwise have been provided if Hitt Road were extended to the boundary of the proposed subdivision. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the issue of the applicants' participation in the completed Strawberry Lane Local Improvement District (LID) is not relevant to the approval criteria applicable to the current request. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline Plan approval to develop a six-lot, five-unit subdivision; an Exception to Street Standards; a Physical Constraints Review permit; and removal of 13 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) including one significant tree, an 18-inch d.b.h. oak, is supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #12008-00182. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2008-00182 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) All conditions of the geotechnical report prepared by Amrhein Associates, Inc, and dated October 12, 2007, including but not limited to the inspection schedule, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 3) That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A unless 1) materials are provided with the Final Plan submittal demonstrating that an individual lot has a negative north slope in excess of 15 percent which would render it subject to Solar Access Standard B; or 2) a Solar Access Variance is applied for and approved for the individual lots concurrently with Final Plan approval. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade. 4) That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.62.089.B.7. 5) That prior to Final Plan approval: a) Engineering for the utility plan including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage and electric facilities shall be submitted. The utility plan shall include the PA 02008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 7 18 location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. b) An Electric Distribution Plan shall be coordinated with the Ashland Electric Department, and shall be included in the utility plan with the Final Plan submittal. C) A drainage plan including necessary final engineering for the private lot stormwater detention systems and any off-site storm drain system improvements shall be provided. d) The engineering for sidewalk improvements to complete sidewalk installation along the subject property's full Strawberry Lane frontage shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. e) The recommendations from the March 6, 2008 meeting of the Ashland Tree Commission; where consistent with applicable standards, shall be incorporated into the Final Plan submittal's Landscaping, Irrigation, and Tree Protection and Removal Plans. f) A draft copy of the CC&R's and the applicants' proposed Deed Restrictions shall be provided. The CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all commonly-owned open space including but not limited to the implementation and maintenance of the approved fire prevention and control plan, and perpetual maintenance of required long term erosion control measures. The CC&R's shall note that any deviation from the approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. The CC&R's and Deed Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. g) The overall lot coverage for the subdivision as a whole shall be limited to no more than 20 percent. At the time of final plan submittal, the applicants shall provide a breakdown, by square footage, of the allowed lot coverage allocated to each lot and demonstrating that the overall subdivision's lot coverage does not exceed the 20 percent allowed in the RR-.5 zoning district. h) That written verification from the project geotechnical expert shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal indicating that the revised six-lot subdivision configuration and associated improvements are consistent with the original report. i) That a landscape and irrigation plan addressing the re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes required in the geotechnical report shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. j) That in addition to the third off-street parking space proposed to be provided on each of Lots 1-5 by the applicants, the Final Plat submittal shall identify four on-street parking spaces to be provided on Hitt Road in bays near the relocated gate and between the driveways of Lots 2 and 4. PA #2008-00182 April B, 2008 Page 8 19 6) That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit: a) A preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be held prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Department, Ashland Building Department, the project engineer, project geotechnical experts, landscape professional, arborist, and contractor. The applicants or applicants' representative shall contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. b) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. C) That the temporary erosion control measures (i.e. fabric sediment fencing, straw bales, crushed rock pads, straw erosion control matting or plastic sheeting) shall be installed and maintained according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, or issuance of an excavation permit. These measures shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. d) The applicants shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit or other financial guarantee in an amount equal to 120 percent of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. 7) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat: a) All easements for sewer, water, drainage, electric, streets or public pedestrian access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. b) Street trees, located one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the Strawberry Lane street frontage as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. Street trees shall be chosen from the Recommended Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Recommended Street Tree List. The street trees shall be irrigated. C) Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities; driveways, driveway approaches and associated erosion control measures; the extension of curbs, gutters, paving and sidewalk improvements on Hitt Road between the end of the existing improvements and the relocated gate location; and sidewalks and street trees on Strawberry Lane shall be installed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The Hitt Road improvements beyond the driveway of Lot 5 shall be sufficient to accommodate the placement of parking bays to accommodate two parking spaces and associated vehicular circulation, and shall be shown in the Final Plan submittal. PA #2008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 9 20 d) That the installation of driveway approaches shall be completed according to city standards under permit from the Public Works/Engineering Department and any necessary inspections approved. e) The existing sidewalk on Hitt Road shall be extended to the northerly edge of the Lot 5 driveway's approach. f) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 1-5. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. g) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 1-5. h) That Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report dated October 12, 2007 provided with the application. Prior to signature of the final survey plat, Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. i) The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. j) The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of street improvements for Hitt Road, including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains. k) That the applicants shall complete the relocation of the gate at the end of the improvements on Hitt Road to the southern extent of the street improvements. The relocation of the gate will be coordinated with the City of Ashland Water Department. 8. That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the lot coverage allocated to each lot. Building footprints, walkways, driveways including the flag drive for Lot 3, parking areas, and any impervious surfaces shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. b) The setback requirements of 18.88.070 shall be met and identified on the building permit submittals including but not limited to the required width between buildings as described in 18.88.070.D. C) Building permit submittals shall clearly demonstrate compliance with the applicants' proposed "Elevation Height Limits" by providing cross-sections or elevation drawings with building heights and elevations above sea level clearly labeled. PA #2008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page 10 21 d) That a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for Hillside Development shall be applied for and approved in accordance with 18.62.040 for the development of Lot 5 prior to submission or issuance of a building permit. 9. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the requirements of the Fire Department, including that approved addressing shall be installed prior to combustible construction; that a fire prevention and control plan shall be implemented and maintained; and that fire apparatus access, fire sprinklers as proposed by the applicants, and a fire hydrant shall be installed, shall be addressed. b) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. C) For Lot #3, the applicants shall provide mitigation for the removal of Tree #31 through on-site replanting, off site replanting, or payment in lieu of planting as provided for in AMC 18.61.084. d) Driveways greater than 50 feet in length, which are considered by definition to be flag drives and thus subject to the flag drive standards, shall be constructed according to flag drive requirements that a 12-foot paved width and 15-foot clear width be maintained, and that parking spaces be configured so that vehicles can turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. ~ICIor~ eninglClommission Approval Date PA 42008-00182 April 8, 2008 Page I 1 22 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center. 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland. OR. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent for quasi- Dave Dottcrrer judicial item, arrived at 8:25 .m. for Type III PA Tom Dimiuc Staff Present: Mike Morris Bill Molar, Community Development Director John Fields Maria Harris, Planning Ivljna~er Pam Marsh - Derck Severson, Associate Planner Melanie Mindlin Richard Amicello. Cif Attorney Absent Member: Michael Dawkins, excused Sue Yates, Executive Secrets ANNOUNCEMENTS Molnar said the Council passed the Ashland Land Use Ordinance amendments (second reading) and the ordinance will go into effect July 1. 2008. The Council also passed (second reading) of the Planning Commission's Powers and Duties. Molnar announced that Sue Yates will be retiring at the end of April. The Commissioners will be receiving an e-mail with three possible dates for the May retreat. Choose a date and return the e-mail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Dinutre/Dottetrer m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: The agenda was approved. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes March 11; 2008 Planning Commission Meeting - Fields/Dotterrer m/s to approve the minutes. Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, discussed the Downtown Design Standards concerning the Administrative Variance for balconies. He showed a photo of the old Ashland Hotel from 1911. It had a balcony/arcade all along the front of the building. It is similar to what is seen in Jacksonville. The historic balcony/arcade extends out into the public right-of-way, assuming the front of the building is the property line. He believes this would be a great way for the City to make use of the valuable public right-of-way space and enhance the Downtown. He recommended the Commission look at the Sanborn map for Downtown for 1911 to see how the Downtown developed. lie would like to have this type of development reviewed if there is any chance of amending the Downtown Design Standards. Not only does the arcadelbalcony enhance the possibilities of upper story restaurants or sitting out over the street, but would also provide shade and a covering in the rain for pedestrians. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: 2008.00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura DESCRIPTION: Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. -file hearing was closed at the last regular meeting. deliberation continued, and the record was left open for seven days at which time the applicant was given seven days to submit a response to any written submissions. Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit Fields walked all the way up and around the property. He noticed the public trail system and the slope of the land. Monis reported that Mrs. Dimino asked him who did the cabinets in the McLellan house. Dintitre. Mindlin. Marsh. Dotterrer and Stromberg had no site visit or ex parte contacts. 23 STAFF REVIEW OF ISSUES I. - On-street parking on Hitt -The number of homes to be accessed from Hitt Road will increase from five to eight. There is a parking demand generated by users of the trail system who currently park in the private driveway near the existing gate and along Hitt Road. (Refer to Staff Report Addendum dated April 8. 2003 for more details.) Staff believes (here are options readily available to address the additional parking demand. The applicant has offered to provide an additional visitor parking pace on each of the proposed lots. Staff believes the Commission could require the applicants provide for additional on-street spaces with parking bays between the driveways for Lots 2 and 4 and/or near the proposed relocated gate. A Condition has been proposed to require that the Final Plan submittal identify additional on-street parking spaces on Hitt Road. 2. Application of lot coverage - The flexibility inherent in the intent of the Performance Standards Options can be applied to lot coverage in tents of the subdivision site as a whole in order to protect natural features of the site while providing architectural creativity. Staff believes this application of lot coverage provides for the greatest protection of the natural environment. 3. McLellan's participation in the LID (issue raised by Dimino's). Severson met with Jim Olson, Interim Public Works Director, and found the McLellan's participated for a two lot potential and paid $3,280. According to the City Attorney, this cannot be reassessed by the Planning Commission's Condition because ORS specifically prohibits reassessment. Staff still believes the application is relatively straight-forward. The Commission will need to determine what degree any increase in on-street parking demand generated by the subdivision needs to be addressed in the Conditions and at Final Plan submittal. Mindlin questioned the 22 foot road width and 20 foot clear. Molnar said eventually, if the Fire Department sees a need. No Parking signs will be installed. Severson tried to leave some flexibility in the Condition (5j) to allow the applicants to submit a proposal after they look into all the options at Final Plan submittal to demonstrate the most efficient way of providing additional parking. Stromberg summarized that the Staff Report Addendum has proposed five spaces (one on each lot), four spaces (two in each parking bay). Severson reiterated that the applicant needs to explore that number and placement and review at Final Plan. There may be other options available to the applicant. Molnar said they are also looking at adequate fire protection for that area. Severson noted that the property beyond the improved road is City property and one private lot that is an extremely sloped lot. Dimitre wondered how many parking spaces are needed to meet adequate City facilities. Severson did not have a specific, but thought in addition to the five additional private spaces the two bays would be adequate. He reminded the Commission an Exception to Street Standards has been requested. Molnar explained that each house is required to have two spaces and the applicants are adding a third. There is no specific requirement for on-street parking in this zoning district. Stromberg said there is a limitation on the amount of on-street parking for those who drive up to that area to use the trail. What is the City's responsibility? Severson said that is the balance the Commission has to find. Molnar said the trailhead exacerbates the potential for a problem, but Staff does not believe they can place that burden on this applicant. Morris wondered why we were allowing the road to end at the driveway and not bring it up to at least to the end of Lot 5 with half street improvements to tine start of the open space. Severson said in evaluating it, the cut slopes would be impacted by sidewalk improvements. If the Exceptions are merited on one set of slopes, it's equally merited in this area. He did not see a reason to have the road conic up further. He thinks the applicants are proposing to have the road go a little past the drive to allow either parking or turnaround. Donerrer noted the whole issue seems to revolve around safety and adequate access for fire apparatus. Appicello said that's why the code acknowledges the use of bays and specifically where they are safe to locate. Equal or superior transportation will be provided with this Exception. Douerrer said a Condition was added to accept the Tree Commission's recommendation. Do we have the authority to ask the applicant to take care of mistletoe in the oak trees? Severson does not think we can require mitigation on every tree. We can require mitigation of the 18 inch tree that is to be removed and when Lot 5 develops we would look at the tree removals proposed as part of the Hillside Development Permit and look at mitigation based on the entire disturbance proposed. With regard to the mistletoe. Severson said the Condition states "...where consistent with City standards." COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATIONS AND MOTION Mindlin believes the Commission should require as much parking as they ca get. If there are areas that aren't as steep and bays will fit in. we should ask for it. Marsh agreed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 8, 2008 24 Dotterrer did not feel extending the street beyond Lot 5 makes good sense. Ile would go alone with a couple of parking bays. The applicant didn't create this situation. Morris said even though the applicants have proposed moving the gate up 20 feet, lie thinks 50 to 00 feet up the existing road (and widening the road for turnaround area) would be appropriate. Ile can't remember a time when there was just a road that ended. Fields said there is no way to put a 30 foot cut up that road. It's just too steep. Severson said he thought the applicants would be widening Hitt Road to the gate to match the existing improvement to the gate. Morrisl Fields mils to approve PA2008.00182, with wording to Condition Sj as follows: That in addition to the third off-street parking space proposed to be provided on each of Lots 1.5 by the applicants, the Final Plan submittal shall also identify four parking bay spaces to be provided on Hitt Road near the relocated gate and between driveways 2 and 4. The gate will be moved to the end of the improvements and Hitt Road to the southern extent of the street improvements. The gate needs to be located sufficiently beyond the bay for the parking space to function as a parking bay. Hitt Road shall be widened to the gate. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. Approval of Findings- Morris/Marsh mis to approve the Findings according to the approved motion. Roll Call: The Findings were unanimously approved. The Commission took a five minute recess. Councilor Cate Hartzell at•rii cc(at 8:15 p.nt. TYPE III PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION: PA2007.01318 SUBJECT: An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Land Use Ordinance concerning special [arterial] setbacks and associated street standards. APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendments to the Special Setback Requirements expand the exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties abutting arterial streets to include all properties abutting Lithia Way. The current ordinance has an exception to the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties zoned C-1 -D which applies to the lots on the south side of Lithia Way. The proposed amendment would also include the lots on the north side of Lithia Way in the exception from the 20-foot front yard requirement. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Street Standards Handbook specify that the minimum width for a commercial tree well is five foot by five foot, and that the minimum required sidewalk with on arterials in the Downtown Design Standards Zone is ten feet. STAFF REPORT Harris did a brief slide show that explained the information in the Staff Report. The proposed amendments have two pieces: 1) Review to Special Setback Requirements, and 2) Some revisions to the Street Standards. 1. Special Setback Requirements - Currently there is an Exception to the 20-foot front yard requirement for properties in the C- 1-D zone. The new language expands that to the C-1 properties abutting Lithia Way. That means the Exception will apply to both sides of the street. 2. Revisions (or clarifications) to the Street Standards a. Commercial parkrow minimum width is five feet. b. Tree grate size of five feet by five feet. C. Structural soil required in hardscape parkrow d. Ten-foot wide sidewalk is minimum width on arterial streets in the Downtown Design Standards zone. What does this mean? Harris showed a photo of Lithia Way. Under the proposed ordinance, as new buildings developed on the South side of the street, the required sidewalk and tree well improvements would be required. On the north side (Post Office side), a 20 foot setback to the building from the property line would be required. Staff has estimated the property line is approximately seven feet back from the curb line. Both sides of the streets should match so the buildings could be placed adjacent to the back of the sidewalk with a standard and commercial parkrow installed. Harris showed some photo renderings to help the Commissioners visualize what the ordinance would mean. The result of the amendment is to get a Main Street development pattern on the north side of Lithia Way. 'rhe official downtown boundary is established in the Downtown Plan adopted in 1988. That includes both sides of Lithia Way. 'That was reaffirmed during the Downtown Designs Zone development in 1998. Benefits of the amendment: • Support the urban principles currently captured in the Comprehensive Plan and the Site Design and Use Standards. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 8, 2008 25 • Preserve downtown character by maintaining the continuity in the established building pattern. • Provide consistency with the Site Design and Use Standards, Transportation Element and TSP. • Provide clear direction for land use application process. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council. Harris noted that when they talked about this in January, Staff had presented a different draft ordinance package. They heard quite a few concerns during and after that presentation about that approach being complex and confusing. Tonight's draft is more straight- forward. Marsh asked what Staff's sense is of the other arterials that have been left undiscussed. Ultimately, Harris believes it would be good to look at Ashland Street because it, along with Lithia Way, has the highest percentage of undeveloped lots. Site reminded the Lithia Way process has taken about nine months. Marsh believes it is important not to lose sight of how we were going to look at all the arterials and we go back and pick it up where appropriate. Stromberg referred to Page 22 of the Street Standards under Street Design Standards concerning the parkrows. It states seven to eight feet on both sides, hardscape parkrow with street trees planted in wells shall be used in commercial areas. It doesn't say anything about reducing the size of the parkrow. Harris said she believes the intent was to use the City specification for the tree grate all along. It used to be four by four feet and recently changed to five by five feet. Dimitre asked how the sidewalk on•the south side of the street compares to what is proposed. Fields said the width in front of the Jasmine building is ten feet, six inches from curb to building. Dimitre said the five-and-a-half feet remaining does not give pedestrians much room to pass. Harris said the ten foot measurement is from the commercial parkrow to the face of the building so that would be a clear ten feet in width in addition to the parkrow. Dimitre asked if we approve this amendment tonight, how does this impact previously approved projects that may not have been built out yet? Harris said this amendment would not apply to an already approved project. Dimitre further asked if there is a way for applicants to come back and ask for an amendment to an earlier approval. Molnar said we are talking about one of the first applications on Northlight that set the building back roughly 27 feet from the curb. They could propose a modification to their design through a public hearing according to the ordinances on the books. Molnar said the Design Standards encourage public spaces in front of the building. Through the process we might be looking at a transitional setback if the contrast in the building line along Lithia Way is too stark. Molnar reflected on what we did before we created the Street Standards (before 1999). There were just two provisions in the code (Subdivision and Performance Standard) that referred to a couple of street standards with a footnote "standards variable based on specific situations." Streets were done internally between Public Works and Planning by looking at the order of the street such as zoning, how much parking, etc. There were no Exceptions ever needed because it was done through discussions with the professional engineering staff. Then we adopted the section that provided for Exceptions. We've gotten hung about where street improvements were built to what was on the books at the time. As we have redevelopment, how do the new standards apply? For a couple of years, there was some learning how to work with the new process. Molnar said it was never anyone's intention to do anything intentionally. PUBLIC HEARING COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison, said neither the•Zucker Report nor Siegel Report led the Council to ask the Planning Commission to deal with this issue. He does not know why the Planning Commission is dealing with this now. Stromberg said the Planning Commission has the independent authority to initiate changes in the Land Use Ordinance. The direction the Council gave was to form a committee that Fields, Morris and Stromberg were on to only process those parts of the Siegel Report that were non-policy items. The drawings in the PowerPoint presentation showed a 15 foot parkrow and sidewalk throughout the Lithia Way corridor. Swales said the whole of the street wall on the south side of Lithia Way has been moved forward right up to the property line with an inadequate sidewalk. The Commission did point out that to move the curbs would be a multi-million dollarjob. The curbs on the front of the Northlight property have been removed this week and he doubts this was a multi-million dollar job. The ordinance provision reads: "In order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to modify the setback as relates to certain arterial streets, namely Lithia Way. It's apparent from the Staff Report that the reason this is being changed is to allow more development on the north side of Lithia Way, specifically for the Northlight property. Swales thought it should read: "In order to protect and benefit the wealth and profits and welfare of the existing and future private developers of the City..." He cannot see a downside if the ordinance change is not approved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 8, 2008 26 JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, is speaking as an architect and citizen. He heard from a local builder that back in the 1960's when this ordinance was created, they were trying to address light and air due to smog from logging trucks and mills in town. The arterials were congested before the freeway went in. He thinks this ordinance tried to address this problem. We don't have that problem now. He is looking forward to clear standards - a standard that addresses the street front and an ordinance that doesn't harken back to some former issue that no longer exists. The Downtown Plans consistently have said to build to the property line. Planners from the state came to Ashland to speak last year and told the attendees that it would be a disaster to have a 20 foot setback all along Lithia Way and to have the plaza space. An occasional mid-block setback is a good thing. He would like the Commission to approve the amended ordinance and move on. RON ROTH, 6950 Old 99 South, stated he has worked in downtown Ashland for over 31 years and has been involved with different issues downtown. He is supportive of this new ordinance. It makes a lot of sense to have this setback. The existing buildings such as the Post Office and the Copeland buildings were not set back 20 feet. GEORGE KRAMER, 386 N. Laurel, congratulated Staff on this change. He applauded the Commission for jumping in and doing Lithia Way first. This is a good change to make sure whatever gets built on Lithia Way will be the right thing. The old language is old planning. The 20 foot setback is a car oriented standard. What we enjoy about North Main and the downtown has to do with the street wall and the zero setback. He works as a design consultant. They design standards that require buildings to have zero setback. People don't like vacant land. A couple mid-block plazas work. Lithia Way needs to reflect a traditional downtown pedestrian core. He is supportive of the proposed compromise. It will provide the flexibility of building designs and still provides for adequate public amenities. MIKE HAWKINS, 500 Oak Street, Jacksonville, OR, asked for explanation of the setback. Harris said currently the setback is 20 feet from the property line. The proposed amendment says you don't have to do a 20 foot setback from the front property line. Hawkins had no other comments. MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, believes this proposed ordinance is a positive contribution to Ashland's primary streetscapes. He believes it will provide clear and objective criteria on which to base their decisions. The current ordinance is a remnant from the automobile era and does nothing to enhance the pedestrian environment. What is the goal of anyone opposing this ordinance? The ordinance amendment is sound planning practice, not developer driven. He would like to see an amendment to the Table I footnote allowing an option for a planter bed similar to East Main Street. It provides a simple amenity and provides seating and additional landscaping and a more human scale experience. Stromberg closed the public herring. COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATION AND MOTION MarshlDotterrer mis to approve the draft ordinance revisions regarding arterial setbacks on Lithia Way and refer them to the City Council. Marsh said clearly there is a great deal of ambiguity and dysfunction around the current arterial setbacks. It's the Planning Commission's job to address those kinds of gaps in the ordinances and to make clear to applicants what we are looking for. Marsh continued that the change in the setbacks on Lithia Way have several distinct advantages. They provide consistency on Lithia Way. Inconsistency causes people to feel uncomfortable on the street. The change will allow us to provide a pedestrian environment that feels safe and provides an enclosure to people using the street. We will be implementing an appropriate commercial environment. If we want buildings in the core of our downtown areas that relate to pedestrians and have retail uses in them that mimic the type of commercial development we have on Main Street, we need to allow those buildings to hug the public sidewalk. Do we want offices in the bottom floor of the downtown core? Is the proposal a wide enough sidewalk? She would like to get rid of the whole concept of a hardscape parkrow and move toward the kind of concept presented by the planners from the state. She would like to see a width of sidewalk and within that sidewalk we have certain zones - f rmiture zone by the curb, passage zone in the middle. We are looking at a 15 foot sidewalk with trees in it. It's a ' broader street than on Main Street and it's hard to argue that it should be any broader than it is laid out. We have a good proposal that we've discussed for a year, and Marsh hoped the Commissioners will join her in approving it. Dotterrer appreciates White and Kramer filling in the history. Two standards for two sides of the street are not balanced. He likes the idea there is flexibility to applicants and yet still having a good streetscape. Dimitre wondered how we get plaza areas if the buildings are less than 10,000 square feet. Molnar said it's not a hard and fast requirement but there is a standard that we encourage hardscape and people areas in the Detailed Site Review Zone in the Downtown. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 8, 2088 27 It is identified as an amenity. Dimitre is more interested in deferring this ordinance change until we get a Downtown Plan, and will vote against the change. Fields believes sidewalk width is a little too wide, but we can live with it. He likes the sidewalks on the south side because it idiosyncratic and has character. Talking about developing better transportation systems, etc. means having densities that will support it. We want to see concentrated commercial areas that have a mixed use of residential above them that encourage people to live, work and support public transportation that changes the way we move ourselves around and how we live. What makes downtowns interesting is the urban part of our lives that create interest and excitement, economy and jobs. What Staff has proposed is a simple solution and a tiny step. He favors the change. Morris would like to see this go forward. Everywhere you go and anyone you talk to from downtown planners to Siegel to ODOT, the streetscape and activity is generated by the narrower sidewalks and the buildings built to the street. He much prefers the energy created compared with walking in Medford where it is spread out and open. He believes we need to allow Staff to use the Downtown Design Standards to break up the masses. Stromberg has resisted doing away with the 20 foot front yard for a long time. He has put a lot of time and effort into getting the City Council to do what he thinks is a badly needed Downtown Plan. He has been discouraged by the City Council's unwillingness to commit itself and commit the resources to do something the downtown and City greatly needs. He can no longer in good faith hold out on the 20 foot front yard that he does not think is appropriate for this area. He may still vote against it because he doesn't want to shrink the sidewalk and parkrow as part of the deal. Molnar talked with Donn Toth, Parks Department. He told him the Planning Commission had been discussing tree grates. Todt told Molnar that soil amendments are what make the difference to trees. The tree grate size won't make that much difference. Stromberg said Siegel gave us language to fix the front yard setback. Also, all yards abutting arterial shall be no less than 20 feet. He believes we should make that correction. And, recommend to the Council that they rescind the complex interpretation they made a couple years ago to deal with the problem. Stromberg added that he did not understand in the Downtown Design Standards it says there should be a zero setback between the either the sidewalk or the property line. He thinks it should be a zero setback from the sidewalk as prescribed by the Street Standards. It seems we are perpetuating an ambiguity. Molnar said that would be easy enough to clear up. Mindlin asked if we want to allow for planter boxes. Molnar did not think the standard precludes us from looking at that. We need to come up with a standard to allow for those items that improve the pedestrian environments that could be included through a City encroachment permit Roll Call: The motion carried with Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Fields, Mindlin votlrig "yes" and Stromberg and Dimitre voting "no." Hartzell agreed with Stromberg that the Downtown Plan is important. She wants to make sure we are stewards of the public space. In giving space to a private building, we must ensure that we are getting a quality of exchange on the public space that is left. OTHER There will be a Water Resources Protection Zone Workshop on April 22"d at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respecljully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 8, 2888 28 ~ . , Planning Department, 51 Win, Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y OF MIL AI Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735.2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura DESCRIPTION: Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 08 AC; TAX LOT: 201 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on March 6, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. HEARING CLOSED - CONTINUED TO APRIL 8, 2008 FOR DELIBERATIONS 1 ~BJEOT P90(41TV iP/ZW6001BY ~.191E0BAC 201 ITIR _ lltt ERR, LIP* C1 y 1 r~ ! J t~ f t ~ M I L 1 jy~ ~J1' R r S y' j f1 r. 0 ]f'-0 ,OOIN /+.Mtl w.s,pnt..n,~y.vrYreeu Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. - - A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 14800435.2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request please feel fri9to contact the Ashland Planning Department 541-488-5305. OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.881 Crlte0- for Approval 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 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 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. I. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. gii1ae development complies with the Street Standards. (Ord 2836, 521999) PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.62.040.1 1. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development*' 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J 'deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06104/2002) EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.88.050 F - Exception to Street Standards An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is damonslrade di ficulry in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter die to a unique or umisual aspect of the silo or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D.The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. (Ord 2836, Amended, 0210211999) 30 U Comm-dev plannins Mika Maikd20CBQeer-0g182me ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM April 8, 2008 PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura LOCATION: 500 Strawberry Lane 39 1 E 08 AC Tax Lot #201 ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-.5-P COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: March 3, 2008 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: July 1, 2008 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.16 R-R Rural Residential District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints 18.88 Performance Standards Options REQUEST: Planning Action #2008-00182 is a request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree. Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. 1. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: At the March 11, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission the applicants presented their proposal and public testimony was taken. The discussion focused on elements including the application of lot coverage standards in Performance Standards subdivisions, the building envelope on Lot 1, and the issue of on-street parking demand on Hitt Road. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 1 of 11 31 One of those participating in the hearing, neighbor Catherine Dimino who resides at 423 Strawberry Lane, requested that the record remain open for seven days to allow additional written submittals as allowed under the Oregon Revised Statutes, and the applicants requested that the record remain open for an additional seven days to allow their submittal of a written response. The meeting was continued to the April 8, 2008 meeting for deliberations and a decision. There are no other planning actions of record for this site since its creation by land partition in 2004. 2) Issues Raised in Written Submittals: Opponent Diminos' Submittals Lou and Catherine Dimino have provided two submittals. In the first, they address concerns with the street standards and the need for connectivity and suggests that a common driveway or public alley would a more appropriate means to access the subdivision, and urges the Commission to require that Hitt Road be completed to the southern boundary of the development. The Diminos also provide supporting written comments from neighbor Debra Kutcher, who was not a participant in the original hearing. The Diminos request that lot coverage be applied on a lot by lot basis rather than to the subdivision as a whole, and that the building envelope on Lot 1 be modified. In their submittals, the Diminos indicate that their research has determined that the McLellans did not participate in the Strawberry Lane Local Improvement District (LID) which had been a requirement of the land partition creating their lot. The Diminos request that the McLellans be required to participate in the LID and that a proportional refund be made to other participants. Applicant McLellans' Submittals Urban Development Services, as agent for the applicants, also provided additional materials during the period when the record was open for new information. Their submittals focus primarily on parking, noting that Hitt Road is 22 feet wide and will accommodate on-street parking on one side based on the Street Standards handbook and that in addition, the applicants are willing to provide one additional on-site guest space for each lot. In addition, these submittals formalize changes to the proposal which were made verbally during the hearing: 1) Adjusting the southern building envelope boundary on Lot 2 an additional ten feet to the south, to provide a 20-foot side yard rather than the 30-foot yard originally proposed, in order to better address solar access; and 2) Adjusting the building envelope on Lot I to provide a 15-foot setback from Hitt Road where a 10- foot setback was originally shown. The applicants also concur with a request made by the Diminos to relocate the gate further up Hitt Road beyond the driveway for Lot 5 in order to allow for better vehicular circulation. Condition #7c has been slightly revised to require street improvements be extended to the relocated gate. Planning Action 2008.00182 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Repod.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 2 of 11 32 II. Proiect Impact Hitt Road Parking As noted in the March 11, 2008 public hearing, Planning Staff believe that the question of addressing parking demand on Hitt Road merits consideration by the Planning Commission. With completion of the proposed development, the number of homes to be accessed from Hitt Road will increase from five to eight, increasing parking demand by sixty percent. In addition to the parking demand by residents, there appears to be parking demand generated by users of the trail system who presently park in the private driveway near the existing gate and along Hitt Road. Staff believe that the issue on Hitt Road parking can be looked at by the Commission both in terms of criteria requiring "adequate key City facilities... including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation..." and in terms of the criteria for the requested Exception to Street Standards which require a demonstration that "The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity." Granting of the requested Exception to. Street Standards potentially reduces the amount of available on-street parking that would be available were the street fully improved to the southern extent of the development. The paved improvement on Hitt Road varies from a 20-foot width near Strawberry Lane to a 22-foot width near the existing gate. The Street Standards Handbook indicates that in hillside areas, a minimum 20-foot clear travel lane shall be provided to allow for adequate fire access and that ample parking shall be provided on street or in bays near the foot of steep hills. The Handbook also notes that streets in hillside areas require special accommodations to respond to and protect natural features while providing for adequate fire protection in wildfire prone areas. The Handbook notes that in certain situations, Exceptions should be granted, for instance to allow curbside sidewalks and sidewalks on only one side of the street where it will minimize negative impacts such as large hillside cuts. Staff believe that there are options readily available to address the additional parking demand associated with the proposed development and to offset the requested Exception to Street Standards by providing for adequate fire protection and equal on-street parking facilities. The applicant has offered to provide an additional visitor parking space on each of the proposed lots. In addition to providing visitor parking on the individual lots, Staff believe that the Commission could require that the applicants provide for additional on- street spaces with parking bays between the driveways for Lots 2 and 4 and/or near the proposed relocated gate. A condition has been proposed below to require that the Final Plan submittal identify additional on-street parking spaces on Hitt Road. Driveway Consolidation The submittals provided by the Diminos argue that a shared driveway or public alley through the development would be more 'in keeping with city street standards. The Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Repart.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 3 of 11 33 Diminos also indicate that this configuration would exclude the driveway from consideration in lot coverage calculations. The Commission clearly has the authority within the land use ordinance to require consolidated access if it deems this necessary, however in Staff's view, the proposed lot lay-out and associated driveway configuration have been proposed in order to respond to site topography and preserve established trees in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options chapter. The use of a common driveway or alley would likely create additional difficulty in responding to the natural features of the site while resulting in equal or greater overall disturbance. Lot Coverage The Performance Standards Options chapter provides for more flexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning codes; this flexibility is specifically intended to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment. The Land Use Ordinance defines coverage in terms of a lot or site, and further goes on to define a lot to include contiguous units of land under single ownership. The flexibility inherent in the intent of the Performance Standards Options chapter can be applied to look at lot coverage in terms of the subdivision site as a whole in order to protect natural features of the site while providing for the architectural creativity and innovation that the chapter demands, and in Staffs view this application of lot coverage provides for the greatest protection of the natural environment. Lot 1 Building Envelope Dimino's submittal expresses concern that the building envelope on Lot 1 is on the steeper portion of the lot and close to Hitt Road and that this placement will result in an imposing presence from Hitt Road. The applicants have proposed to pull the envelope an additional five feet back from Hitt Road, and in Staffs view the placement of the proposed envelope is intended to minimize the impact to immediately adjacent neighbor while preserving the established trees on the lot and on the neighboring lot while placing the driveway in the area of least slope disturbance to minimize the impact to the site and its natural features. The structure built within the proposed envelope will be limited by lot coverage, by the solar ordinance, and by the applicants' own proposed self-imposed elevation height limit. Local Improvement District (LID) Staff does not believe that participation in an already completed Local Improvement District (LID) can be found to be relevant to the applicable approval criteria for the current application. However, in Staff review of the final Strawberry Lane LID resolution, the McLellans were assessed and participated in the LID in an amount of $8,280, which was based on the future development of two units on their property. This could not be adjusted through Planning Commission conditions as requested by the Diminos, and would require Council action to reopen the public hearing for that LID. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Repon.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 4 0(11 34 Ili. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in 18.88.030.A as follows: 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 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 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. I. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040.1 as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Repod.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert 8 Laura Page 5 of 11 35 The criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal are described in 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Planning Action 200800182 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant McLellan, Robert 8 Laura Page 6 of 11 36 The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in 18.88.050.F as follows: Exception to Street Standards. An-exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations As previously noted, in Staffs opinion, the application is a relatively straightforward one that is proposed in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options chapter. Staff believes that the application is consistent with the approval criteria for a six-lot, five-unit Performance Standards subdivision; an Exception to Street Standards; a Physical Constraints Review permit; and the removal of 13 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) including one significant tree, an 18-inch d.b.h. oak. Staff believe that the primary issue which remains to be resolved is for the Commission to determine to what degree any increase in on-street parking demand generated by the subdivision needs to be addressed in the final plan submittal. Planning Staff recommend approval of the application with the following conditions attached: I) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) All conditions of the geotechnical report prepared by Amrhein Associates, Inc. and dated October 12, 2007, including but not limited to the inspection schedule, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 3) That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A unless 1) materials are provided with the Final Plan submittal demonstrating that an individual lot has a negative north slope in excess of 15 percent which would render it subject to Solar Access Standard B; or 2) a Solar Access Variance is applied for and approved for the individual lots concurrently with Final Plan approval. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade. 4) That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.62.089.B.7. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert 8 Laura Page 7 of 11 37 5) That prior to Final Plan approval: a) Engineering for the utility plan including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage and electric facilities shall be submitted. 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, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean- outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. b) An Electric Distribution Plan shall be coordinated with the Ashland Electric Department, and shall be included in the utility plan with the Final Plan submittal. C) A drainage plan including necessary final engineering for the private lot stormwater detention systems and any off-site storm drain system improvements shall be provided. d) The engineering for sidewalk improvements to complete sidewalk installation along the subject property's full Strawberry Lane frontage shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. e) The recommendations from the March 6, 2008 meeting of the Ashland Tree Commission, where consistent with applicable standards, shall be incorporated into the Final Plan submittal's Landscaping, Irrigation, and Tree Protection and Removal Plans. f) A draft copy of the CC&R's and the applicants' proposed Deed Restrictions shall be provided. The CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all commonly-owned open space including but not limited to the implementation and maintenance of the approved fire prevention and control plan, and perpetual maintenance of required long term erosion control measures. The CC&R's shall note that any deviation from the approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. The CC&R's. and Deed Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. g) The overall lot coverage for the subdivision as a whole shall be limited to no more than 20 percent. At the time of final plan submittal, the applicants shall provide a breakdown, by square footage, of the allowed lot coverage allocated to each lot and demonstrating that the overall subdivision's lot coverage does not exceed the 20 percent allowed in the RR-.5 zoning district. h) That written verification from the project geotechnical expert shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal indicating that the revised six-lot subdivision configuration and associated improvements are consistent with Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 8 of 11 38 the original report. i) That a landscape and irrigation plan addressing the re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes required in the geotechnical report shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. j) That in addition to the third off-street parking space proposed to be provided on each of Lots 1-5 by the applicants, the Final Plat submittal shall also identify on-street parking spaces to be provided on Hitt Road either near the relocated gate or between the driveways of Lots 2 and 4. 6) That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit: a) A preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be held prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Department, Ashland Building Department, the project engineer, project geotechnical experts, landscape professional, arborist, and contractor. The applicants or applicants' representative shall contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. b) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. c) That the temporary erosion control measures (i.e. fabric sediment fencing, straw bales, crushed rock pads, straw erosion control matting or plastic sheeting) shall be installed and maintained according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, or issuance of an excavation permit. These measures shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. d) The applicants shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit or other financial guarantee in an amount equal to 120 percent of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. 7) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat: a) All easements for sewer, water, drainage, electric, streets or public pedestrian access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department - Slag ReponAds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 9 of 11 39 b) Street trees, located one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the Strawberry Lane street frontage as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. Street trees shall be chosen from the Recommended Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Recommended Street Tree List. The street trees shall be irrigated. c) Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities; driveways, driveway approaches and associated erosion control measures; the extension of curbs, gutters, paving and sidewalk improvements on Hitt Road between the end of the existing improvements and the relocated gate location; and sidewalks and street trees on Strawberry Lane shall be installed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat. d) That the installation of driveway approaches shall be completed according to city standards under permit from the Public Works/Engineering Department and any necessary inspections approved. e) The existing sidewalk on Hitt Road shall be extended to the northerly edge of the Lot 5 driveway's approach. f) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 1-5. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. g) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 1-5. h) That Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report dated October 12, 2007 provided with the application. Prior to signature of the final survey plat, Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. i) The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. j) The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of street improvements for Hitt Road, including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains. Planning Action 200800182 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan. Robert 8 Laura Page 10 of 11 40 k) That the applicants shall complete the relocation of the gate at the end of the improvements on Hitt Road to the southern extent of the street improvements. The relocation of the gate will be coordinated with the City of Ashland Water Department. 8. That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the lot coverage allocated to each lot. Building footprints, walkways, driveways including the flag drive for Lot 3, parking areas, and any impervious surfaces shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. b) The setback requirements of 18.88.070 shall be met and identified on the building permit submittals including but not limited to the required width between buildings as described in 18.88.070.D. C) Building permit submittals shall clearly demonstrate compliance with the applicants' proposed "Elevation Height Limits" by providing cross- sections or elevation drawings with building heights and elevations above sea level clearly labeled. d) That a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for Hillside Development shall be applied for and approved in accordance with 18.62.040 for the development of Lot 5 prior to submission or issuance of a building permit. 9. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the requirements of the Fire Department, including that approved addressing shall be installed prior to combustible construction; that a fire prevention and control plan shall be implemented and maintained; and that fire apparatus access, fire sprinklers as proposed by the applicants, and a fire hydrant shall be installed, shall be addressed. b) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. c) For Lot #3, the applicants shall provide mitigation for the removal of Tree #31 through on-site replanting, off site replanting, or payment in lieu of planting as provided for in AMC 18.61.084. d) Driveways greater than 50 feet in length, which are considered by definition to be flag drives and thus subject to the flag drive standards, shall be constructed according to flag drive requirements that a 12-foot paved width and 15-foot clear width be maintained, and that parking spaces be configured so that vehicles can turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Repod.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robed 8 Laura Page 11 of 11 41 - ell v R yq gRgaggt =S"q t \ ~Ta 1 \ Rggb a Yt;~"~L`~Loe s . lea tq n19 \ \ \ t. 2t \ . \ Za~~Q ~~Ad A$ga 4$EP / \ 1 fl€ a=fit;€egsssss~r~i; / it i i4 ~9S~1 Ea taf dpi 1I It 1 A%iii 1! ' .r• 1 D i x x x o v x x a x x e x s ° x a_ a a s n > ldda:Ep:::d:dl:I!€lflPPrl.e;95; / _ I , i d! { a } L l a{{ fl F i f l{ fqq ,-i / '8~= ' i 1 € ? ~ ~ i ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ e f f f . e • s P . ~fi / ~s .ii'~ % ~'a i I tt55i9 55 1~1 yy55 5 / y, ilI a a e v e c__ e a x 1pa * fell II d • a! L Y d .K. € L i M p iii n_ a y l ~al'ra.'-F: yr IU+'~T"P' ccc j I tt qq 'il w,h xc ,~l ,a s rl_,, .n I. i : i I ! d y ! e ? ? ! I F /1 A / '~n, il-eye}g§~T,°s,".{'S~ ~~1g tif7pgeyY~ 4 k *3S p, 8O / y i F i 1 ~ ~ ~ °AK' IEq ° c a a x a x a x a e a a x lao E 1 ao i', 1'Yi aor j 1?I~~ I. ~ ; ` s a. n a x a= e a• In I I I x a, qtA . „ E ~ i 111 C:. °°°c xPro I I a~ : € 1 : [ : P : d t • ! ! ! I I i ~ I I P~ I~ I ~ ~ I Yi by I I 3 r OI i i d d!! I! d!€ fl l d d ! L _ I I ~ I~ I ';I I I ' I I I _.L._._._. i } rs ® ~ ''I III saz O I b ~ II m m O i .1 1 vc ti.: 1 i < I I I, as tl 8 1 D x e a e a_ ° i I I ' 1 II{ _ i r •N ; z~;~ I I - 1 h m rt ',Z $ .racy • °3N y 1 A a a 3 9 M o Z C , ~ - LAORII SAGER ,It - m MCLELUN PROPERTY ^ 70 0 {r AND QSSOCIAiES LANDSCAPE QRCHITECfS INC P-~ Ti PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 500 STRAWBERRY LANE '•i S _l 700 MISTLETOE ROAD, SUITE 201 AsHuND, OREGON ASHLAND, OREGON 9]520 MATERIALS SUBMITTED WHILE RECORD WAS OPEN March 12 - March 19, 2008 43 1 Comments from Catherine & Lou Dimino 423 Strawberry Lane PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura LOCATION: 500 Strawberry Lane 39 I E 08 AC Tax Lot #201 March 17, 2008 Meeting Street Standards The character of upper Strawberry Lane has and continues to change. The City changed 1 lot into 4 across from Birdsong, and there is a proposal to partition the adjacent lot on Westwood into 3 lots. We understand there has been a discussion about trading the open space across from the City lots with some developer's lots on Clay Street. There was a proposal to develop the property above the water tank under Proposition 37. Now this applicant is proposing to subdivide I lot into 6 lots. When the neighborhood is fully developed, it will be much larger than many had expected, and look much different. The first statement in City of Ashland Street Standards Handbook says "Ashland's streets are some of the most important public spaces in the community." It is important that the applicant's subdivision proposal consider the impact the proposal has on the community. Some of the required Street Layout and Design principles are: • Streets are important elements of the form and character of neighborhoods. Street layout and design are an integral part of neighborhood design. • Neighborhood identity is largely influenced by the streets in the area. • Streets should be designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical services vehicles. The effects of decisions concerning turning radii and paths must be made with a full understanding of the implications of such decisions on the other users of the street. • The following conditions (existing and projected) must be considered in order to design each street. o The volume of pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle traffic each day and at peak hours o The speeds of motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians along the street as designed or redesigned. o The mix of pedestrian bicycle and motor vehicle traffic (including percentage of large trucks) • Streets should be interconnected. • Pedestrians, bicyclists and bus riders are considered primary users of all streets. • Street trees should be planted on neighborhood streets to create attractive and healthy neighborhood environments, and to enhance the image of a street as a place with which residents can identify. Matt 44 ie(d ❑ ( ;;;~r~ ❑ COUr ' Unless stated otherwise, quoted statements below are taken from City of Ashland Street Standards Handbook. The applicant claims they comply with the Street Standards because they are not proposing new streets and that the proposed driveways are on Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road, which were recently upgraded. The proposal fails to even address whetter a street, alley or common driveway is needed for the new subdivision. Three of the newly- proposed driveways are on Hitt Road, which is a steep road that appears to be built to hillside standards (i.e. width is 20 feet). 1) Connectivity Standards are important standards that provide alternate routes and enhance the neighborhood for pedestrians and bicyclists. "Streets shall be interconnected to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes, provide for efficient provision of utilities and emergency services and provide multiple travel routes." [Page 11, Street Connectivity Approval Standards] "All designs encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel." [Page I, Introduction] Street Connectivity Approval Standards recommends using an alley where possible. Creating an alley between Strawberry Land and Hitt Road has advantages. Extending the current driveway provides a much gentler way to exit Hitt Road when weather conditions are bad. It integrates the new subdivision into the neighborhood with a path for pedestrians and bicyclists. It allows travelers to choose from many routes, and it "lets the walker/cyclist match the route to their particular skills." [Page 4 Basic Principles of Traditional Street Design]. It reduces the need for large driveways and the visual intrusion of garages. It can create positive space for neighbors, children and pedestrians. [Page 12, Alleys] 2) "The number of driveway intersections with streets shall be minimized by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible." [page 42, Driveway Apron and Curb Cut Standards] At least 2 driveways can easily be avoided on Hitt Road by converting the applicant's current driveway to a common driveway that services lot 2, 3, 4, and maybe lot land 5. This could also eliminate the self imposed need to request more than 20% lot coverage for lots 2 & 3 by giving ownership of the common driveway to lot 4. Please see Debra Kutcher's comments about driveways on Hitt Road and the use of the applicant's driveway as a common driveway. 3) People park on Hitt Road even though no lots are developed. Hitt Road is an access point to trails.and beautiful vistas above the water tank. This proposal increases the number of homes on the road by 60% (from 5 to 8 homes). The handbook's required R v v 2_• } Is.~tar, 45 CITY OT Asniand Fuld ❑ Office 0 Court street design principles say that neighborhood streets should provide access to major attractors. Parking needs will only get greater when the lots are developed. Eliminating all parking on Hitt Road makes that street community unfriendly. It is unreasonable to expect people to use Strawberry Lane for parking. Not all potential visitors will walk up the steep street. Hitt Road is a public road. There is less interference between community and neighborhood parking if the road and sidewalk is extended to the end of the subdivision, and the gate is moved to the end of the improved road. While we cannot control where members of the community park, it is the most logical parking place for people who are accessing the trails and vistas above the water tank. 4) Hitt Road needs a turnaround near the new gate. 5) "Sidewalks are shaded by trees for pedestrian comfort." The sidewalks should meet the f tree every 30 feet requirement on Hitt Road. In the steep park row it is possible to carve out an area for shade trees. We've seen this done in other towns with steep, almost vertical, slopes. 6) Birdsong Trail is very nice. However, it is unreasonable to substitute the trail as alternative connectivity to Hitt Road. It is designed for pedestrians, not cyclists. Some people are concerned about the poison oak. Expecting everyone to park on Birdsong puts a burden on a narrow street that contains a lot of curb cuts and common area in the middle of the road. It is difficult to navigate around the circle when cars are parked near the Birdsong common area. I,see more cars parked on Hitt than on Birdsong. 7) Street Standards state "Exceptions should be allowed when physical conditions exist that preclude development of a public Street, or components of the street." [Introduction, page I] If there is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the Street Standards, an exception to Street Standards may not be granted (see 18.88.0501. The road above the gate is not steeper than the improved Hitt Road. 1 don't understand the applicant's argument for an exception to extending the gate to the end of the subdivision. The applicant states they want to protect the environment on one end of the subdivision, but on the other end of the subdivision they propose to create 3 lots that exceed the maximum lot coverage. The two requests are inconsistent. The applicant's unique setting with the beautiful sweeping yard and grove of trees will be irreversibly changed. Putting the common space at the end of the subdivision without any place to park makes it difficult for some of the lot owners to access that space. ;i 3 1 MAR I Glry Ot , l ;nd 46 ' Pieid F_] Office ❑ Coul While the applicant may find it undesirable to extend the street to the end of the subdivision, it is clear that street standards can be met. Staffs Conclusions and Recommendations 70) state "The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of street improvements for Hitt Road, including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains." This indicates there aren't any exceptions that preclude the development of the street to the end of the subdivision. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the Street Standards. It is desirable for future owners and the community. The work should be done now, not in the future. 8) The Exception to Street Standards needs to show that the variance will result in equal of superior transportation facilities and connectivity. The need for additional parking and owner access to their common area is missing in the current proposal. 9) The Exception to Street Standards needs to show that the variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The applicant claims that the exception to street standards reduces the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. It can just as easily be said that exception to the street standards has a negative impact on the neighborhood. In addition to loosing a unique setting, the additional 3 driveways add a parking burden to Hitt Road, and the owners cannot park near the common area unless the road is extended to the end of the subdivision. Extending the road to the end of the subdivision N far superior for travelers interested in accessing the trails above the water tank, especially in the summer when it is exhausting reaching the trail in the hot sun. It is also better for guests who don't want to compete with the travelers who park on Hitt Road. CONCLUSION: Please require the applicant to provide an alley as this provides better connectivity and alternate route during bad weather. Alternatively, a common driveway reduces the number of driveways on Hitt Road, and it relaxes the need for the applicant to exceed the lot coverage requirements on lot 2 & 3. Hilt Road needs to be extended to provide access to the subdivision's common area. A turnaround needs to be added before the gate, and Hitt Road should have I tree every 30 feet. Not Exceeding 20% Maximum Lot Coverage Please disallow lot designs that exceed the 20% maximum coverage for individual lots. I feel confident when you finish reading this and the last section, you will see that there is a flaw in the current interpretation of lot coverage. Please bear with the explanation. It isn't easy to see the flaw. This section states facts that you may or may not agree until you read the last section. The information in this section explains why lot coverage must not exceed 20%, and it sets the stage for reading the last section. i. ,acs f"c; 4; cr city of f~,;land 47 f=ield F] Office ❑ Cour I) Staff states "The overall lot coverage for the subdivision as a whole shall be limited to no more than 20 percent." 18.16.040 explicitly says "Maximum lot coverage for acre lots is 20%." This states lot coverage. It does not state lot or site coverage, or overall lot coverage. 2) Unless exempt in the Performance Standards Options, all applicable sections of the Land Use Development Ordinance must be met. Lot coverage is not exempt from 18.88.100, nor is coverage mentioned anywhere else in Chapter 18.88. Consequently, Staff should use the maximum lot coverage instead of applying the overall lot coverage rule. 3) Enforcement 18.112.070 Interpretation states when conditions imposed by a provision are less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other provision, the provisions which are more restrictive shall govern. The more restrictive provision is maximum lot coverage for 1/2 acres lots is 20%. 4) The Planning Department interprets the definition of lot coverage to mean they may waive the lot coverage maximum and apply an overall lot coverage for the subdivision. There are several problems with this. a. What criteria must be met before Staff waives the lot coverage maximum and applies an overall lot coverage? It should not be arbitrary. Is the application of overall lot coverage always granted when the applicant requests it? Exception to Street Standards provides criteria that must be applied. What are the stated criteria for applying overall lot coverage? In this proposal, the applicant's request for more lot coverage is self imposed. The lots can be made larger to accommodate.the square footage the applicant wants for lots 1, 2, and 3. It isn't environmentally sensitive to cover more of the lot when there isn't a hardship. Other alternatives are 1) adjust the location of the envelopes on lots I and 2 so they do not require large driveways; or 2) create lots that are accessed via a common driveway or alley which is recommended in the Street Standards Handbook. b. The definition of"18.08.160 Coverage, lot or site" is for 2 terms. The terms are "lot coverage" or "site coverage". If the definition isn't for 2 terms, then the department's interpretation of the definition has bizarre results that could allow for up to 100% lot coverage and significantly less than 20% site .,i '.i i - 5 MAR i R 7" -•`3 'Id 48 ?'field 0 lice ❑ Cour' coverage in this district. See my explanation in "Lot or Site Coverage Bizarre Results & Definition of Lot and Site. " [I recommend you read this last, even though this is where the flaw is explained.] c. Maximum site coverage is not specified in the ordinances for this district. d. The excess coverage is not distributed equally to all lots. 5) Allowing larger lot coverage is contrary to what we were told when we were in the process of purchasing our lot. What happened to us appears that waiving the lot coverage maximum is arbitrary. The purchase of our lot was contingent upon changing the building envelope so we could build a one story home on the level portion of the lot. During this process we discovered that owning part of the common driveway meant we had to reduce the size of our home by approximately 1,000 sq. fl. We were told we could not exceed the 20% lot coverage ordinance that applied to our district. The owner applied for a lot line adjustment at our expense so we would not own any part of the common driveway when we finalized the purchase. [We could build a larger house on a smaller lot by giving the common driveway to the owner of a much larger lot.] We designed our house and driveway to follow the lot coverage definition, not realizing that the Coverage, lot or site definition was incomplete. Late in the design, we discovered the roofline not the footprint of the house counted as part of the total area ofall structures, paved driveways, or other soil disturbances that will not allow normal water infiltration. We reduced the size of our house and the roof overhang, but even that didn't get us to the 20% lot coverage. We researched and found a porous driveway that did not allow for normal water infiltration. We checked with the Planning Dept, and instead of approving the driveway they approved 23% lot coverage. We built a driveway that allowed for water infiltration and stayed within the 20% lot coverage requirement, even though we had approval for 23% lot coverage. [We asked the Planning Dept for approval of a porous driveway. Instead we were approved for additional lot coverage.] Conclusion: Please change lot coverage for lot I to 20%. We believe all lots should be 20%, but lot I impacts us the most. If it is agreed that I've proved that maximum lot coverage is 20%, please require 20% maximum lot coverage for all lots. The applicant can modify the plan so this requirement is met. Changing Building Envelope for Lot I While we believe it is desirable to change the building envelope for all of the lots, we respectfully request that you change it for lot I, which greatly impacts us. 1) The Planning Dept Staff Report notes that the steeper portions of the site are along the roadside at the north and east of the site and at the south end. The applicant is proposing a building envelop for lot 1 in the steeper portions of the lot. This increases the amount of cut and fill, which the applicant wants to reduce by relocating _ br, 49 ony Oi /,---viand Field [j Office p Ceur the driveway to Strawberry Lane. It is more natural to move the envelope to the center and closer to the Darling where the lot isn't as steep. A carefully placed envelope could preserve the Darling's view. 2) As I stated at the hearing, the conceptual design will be very imposing on Hitt Road. Not only does that ruin our view from our family room, it will have a major impact on the neighborhood. Being so close to Hitt Road where the lot is the steepest will give the house a castle keep appearance that affects not just us but the overall character of the neighborhood. This impacts people who drive through the neighborhood, people who walk the trails, and people who live near lot 1. 3) Our major concern when looking out of our family room is we'll see all house without any green space because the house is so close to the road. On smaller lots in other districts, it is understandable that a house would be closer to the road. However in acre zoning, situating the house that close to the road disturbs the neighborhood architecture and proportions. 4) Another disturbing aspect of the placement of the envelope and request for more lot coverage is it increases the need for a larger driveway. Living in a rural residential area one hopes to look at green space rather than large driveways and cars. It is strange to put the driveway on Strawberry Lane and then treat the house as if is on '/4 acre lot (i.e. shifted to eastern most side of the lot). Lot 1 envelope should not be approved. 5) The driveway for lot 1 should be east of the 2 oak trees on Strawberry Lane. One drawing shows it west of the 2 oak trees and in the crosswalk. Another drawing shows the driveway with out the oak trees. While they are small trees, they are already established and should be preserved. Lot or Site Coverage Bizarre Results & Definition of Lot and Site The definition of Coverage is 18.08.160 Coverage, lot or site says "Total area of all structures, paved driveways, or other soil disturbances that will not allow normal water infiltration. The coverage is expressed as a percentage ofsuch area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. " The title of this section is "Coverage, lot or site." 1 contend this defines "lot coverage" or "site coverage." The 2"d sentence says "The coverage is expressed as a percentage of to the total gross area of the lot or site." This defines coverage for a lot, or coverage for a site. 7• 7^'.3 MAN 1 P. 50 y=ield [I o ,ica ❑ Conn In the event I'm incorrect, the following illustrates what happens if 2 terms are not being defined. 1) The ordinances do not say a lot can take coverage from the overall coverage of the site. Instead Staff has interpreted this from the definition of "Coverage, lot or site." The Planning Dept's interpretation changes the meaning of the 2nd sentence to "The lot coverage is expressed as a percentage of to the total gross area of the lot or site." If the overall lot coverage is 20% of the total gross area of the site, it is possible to give 100% coverage to a '/2 acre lot. For example, a fictional subdivision in a %2 acre district consists of: One '/2 acre lot asking for more coverage Four 1/2 acre lots each using 20% One 5 acre lot with steep slopes Four of the '/2 acre lots use 20%. There is 5 acres that the %2 acre lot can use for computing 20% of the site. 20% of 5 acres is I acre, which gives the %2 acre lot the ability to ask for 100% coverage. 2) If the Planning Dept's interpretation is correct then the converse has to be correct. The converse is "The site coverage is expressed as a percentage of to the total gross area of the lot or site." Site coverage is 20% of the total gross area of the lot obviously doesn't make sense. Definitions of Lot and Site The definition of lot is: 18.08.350 Lot A unit of land created by a partition or a subdivision, or a unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership, which complies with all applicable laws at the time such lots were created. Any contiguous ownership of non-conforming lots will be considered one (1) tract of land. (Ord. 2097 S I,_ 1980) There isn't a definition for site in the Definitions chapter. However, Chapter 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards contains the following information: 8.72.030 Application Site design and use standards shall apply to all zones of the city and shall apply to all development indicated in this Chapter, except for those developments which are regulated by the Subdivisions (18.80), the Partitioning (18.76), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). %J 51 tarry .o Nsi iiar:dR Figid ❑ Orfice Q Cou Site Design and Use standards do not apply to subdivisions, partitions, etc., while a lot is created by partition or subdivision. Consequently it was necessary to have a coverage definition for a lot and a coverage definition for a site. This was done with "Coverage, lot or site." 9L I MAR i 52 Meld iiy G ice Cl Gouty El i Re: McLellan subdivision - WebMail - Msg hitp:/Avebmail.uslogin.nel/reademaii.php?id=1176&folder-Inbos&... 'JFrom: "debra allenkutcher" <seabiscuituavel@gmaiLcom>To: cdimino@jef(net.org Priority: Normal Subject: Re: McLellan subdivision Date: Sun 03/16/08 10:29 AM A 4E >r Dear Community Development, Hikers, bikers and bears or my... In regards to the development of the McCullen's proprosed development, 1 am quite concerned about the safety of the of the many, many hikers and mountain bikers as well as dogs and kids that take Hitt Road. With the development of three new driveways, which brings the total to eight driveways emptying out on Hitt Road, where in the world will people park or turn around. Is Hitt Road a standard size roadway for city standards? What are the liability and ethical responsibilities? Can a firetruck pass if there is a car parked? Being a high fire zone, I am concerned about the safety of my family, should a fire start above us off of Hitt Road. I have never spoken to the McCullens in regard to the development. I thought that the access to the lots would, logically be, from his own long driveway, as we have seen in nearby development. As a neighbor, these driveways would impact the traffic on Hitt Road. increasing noise, traffic and adding unnecessary danger. They would disrupt deer paths and patterns that cross Strawberry Lane walk up Hitt Road pavement about 100 yards, then veer to native land open space. Years ago we were so pleased that with the McCullen's purchase of a large property with only one house was such a positive Impact to the community. He encouraged us and other to do the same and try to have neighbors donate land to open space. Oh course, things change, development happens. 1 only hope that it can have the least impact on safety of the community. 1 feel that driveway access from Hitt Road is a dangerous idea and i am opposed to It for the reasons mentioned above. 1 am also in hopes that the 20% utilization will be followed, keeping lots as large as possible to lessen the footprint of new development. Thank Von, Debra Allen Kutcher 400 Strawberry Lane Ashland, Oregon (541) 552-9332 On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Catherine Dimino <cdlmino(ftleffnet.oro> wrote: Debra, The public record is being held open for another 7 days. You have until 5pm March 18th to submit more Information to the Community Development Dept. It can more evidence or an argument for your requests. -Catherine aC. Ci,lr Field ❑ Ufica ❑ Courr I of 1 3/16/2008 7:29 PM 53 Fwd: Dimino Comments regarding Mcl,ellan subdivision - WebMail... h(tp://%wbmail.uslogin.net/readeniaii.php?id°I 175&folder-Inbox&... J `JFrom: "debra allenkutcher" <seabiscuittravel@gmaiLcom>To: cdimino@jeffnet.org Priority: Normal Subject: Fwd: Dimino Comments regarding McLellan subdivhDate: Sat 03/15108 2:25 PM T ° 44 OF Forwarded message From: debra allenkutcher < seabismittravelOgmall.com> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:00 AM Subject: Re: Dimino Comments regarding McLellan subdivision To: Bill Kutcher <kutcher409mall.com> Dear Catherine, Your thoughts are very articulate. Thank you for writing and sending them to me. You may want to look Into the history of the deal Robert had when he bought the property. Dear Commissioners, As I am unable to attend tonights meeting, I would like to share my concerns regarding the the lot one location. From knowing Robert, 1 believe the spirit of open space is Important to us all. The feel of the neighborhood is one of preservation of as much land as is possible. I would like lot one not to be developed, rather designated as an open space. Lots higher up on Mitt road would afford better views to prospective owners. Perhaps the city could afford Robert some sort of compensation for this consideration. I am aware that Robert has donated to open space in the past in the benefit to us all. Thank you, Debra Kutcher 400 Strawberrry Lane On Tue, 11, 2008 at 6:14 AM, debra allenkutcher <seabiscuittravelftmail.com> wrote: Forwarded message - From: Catherine Dimino <cdiminoOfeffnet.oro> Date: Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:29 PM Subject: Dimino Comments regarding McLellan subdivision To: seabiscuittravel@gmaii.com Debra, here's my comments. Lou took a copy to Community Dev Dept today, but It was too late to get Into the Commissioners' packet. I'm bringing extra copies to the meeting for the Commissioners, and I will present my issues at the meeting. -Catherine Comments from Catherine 8, Lou Dimino 423 Strawberry Lane PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura LOCATION: 500 Strawberry Lane 39 lE 08 AC Tax Lot >201 (1" refers to Catherine Dimino, and -we" refers to Lou & Catherine Dimino) The comments made in the Planning Commission's March 11, 2008 packet are a misrepresentation of Mrs. Dimino's concerns. I told Mr. Knox that there was a density of 1.2 dwellings per acre for subdivisions and I suggested that lot 1 not be developed. 1 disagreed with his comment that not developing lot 6 was better for the neighborhood, but agreed that If lot 6 required to be developed under the hillside ordinances then developing lot 1 was better for the MCLellans because the lot was more marketable. I requested a Copy of the plan so I could study the proposal and make comments. Mr. McLellan and separately Mr. Knox denied the request because it was a preliminary plan. 1 expected they would contact me and give me an opportunity to comment on a later plan. Iof I hiAf~ 3/16/20087:23 I'M GOUr'1 Field ❑ ;;'ce Ca 54 i. i~ i~ la / _ (I S I~~✓1-~~1~7_l.. `~'ILC,~"' (,Ul L.(.(.tG~e~J' ~-y-~L~ .~L~~ S~YLQ.-LCLC~.h~Lc j Ii ii ' 55 ~i 94-08501 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREG(...o xw AGREEMENT OWNER: Douglass Neuman ADDRESS: 490 Strawberry Lane, Ashland, OR Rebecca Nauman 490 Strawberry Lane, Ashland, OR. PROPERTY: 39 1E 9 SAO 201 (Parcel 11 TwP RANGE SECTION ASSESSOR'S MAP # TAX LOT # (s) STREET ADDRESS: 490 Strawberm Lane. Ashland OR PLANNING ACTION 93-M Minor Land Partition lTvne 0 February 4 1994 PA# TYPE 1 DATE As the owner(s) of the property listed above, I/we hereby consent to the following Improvements, dedication, or other actions as required by the City of Ashland, and agree to bear the proportionate payment of associated costs. This Agreement Is to be binding upon myself/ourselves, my/our heir(s), executors, and assigns, and it is my/our express Intention that this Agreement shall run with the land, so that fulfillment of the items listed below shall be binding upon future owners of the property. This consent Is In consideration of APPROVAL OF A MINOR LAND PARTITION. IMPROVEMENT, DEDICATION OR OTHER ACTION: 1) AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENT OF STRAWBERRY LANE, INCLUDING CURB, GUTTER, PAVING, SIDEWALKS AND STORM DRAIN; AND AGREE NOT TO REMONSTRATE TO THE FORMATION OF SUCH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; AND AGREE TO PAY ASSIGNED SHARE OF SUCH DESIGNATED Jacbm County, Oregon IMPROVEMENT COSTS. Recorded OFFK]AL RECORDS q.*5'f MAR 0 7 1994 18"M, KATHLEEN S. BECKETT f CLERK and RECORDER SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE i STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) Do JC)(Os 5 /1 A,?u 14 n Onthislo-dayof Fe. beforeme personallyappeared,he crtt iPf~(>r„mcn whosaldentity was proven to me on the basis of satisfactory vidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) to (are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged that he (she)(they) executed the same. w~ OFFICIAL SEAL li ) ! ILYI-(_.' C" \ NANCY E. SLOCUM NOTARY P UC FO NC;L:R f PUCLIC - OREGON EGON MY COM SSION I S: S: t. OS;ON NO. 009647 A:~ C.:nsPSS:CN Exv;RES SEP. 18,1995 - 56 ~i~~ff'I - i ~ r nl it .,'fTY OF ASHLAND, OREGC 94-oe5oz C ~o AGREEMENT OWNER Douglass Neuman ADDRESS: • 490 Strawberry Lars, Ashland, OR Rebecca Neuman 490 Strawberry Lane, Ashland, OR. PROPERTY: 79 1E a SAC 201 (Parcel 2) TwP RANGE SECTION ASSESSOR'S MAP i TAX LOT rf (s) STREET ADDRESS: 490 Strawberry Lars. Ashland. OR, PLANNING ACTION 99.089 Minor Land Perdition (Type a February 4 1994 PA/ TYPE 1 DATE As the owner(s) of the property listed above, I/we hereby consent to the following Improvements, dedication, or other actions as required by the City of Ashland, and agree to bear the proportionate payment of associated costs. This Agreement is to be binding upon mysetf/ourselves, my/our helr(s), executors, and assigns, and it is my/our express Intention that this Agreement shall run with the land, so that fulfillment of the items listed below shall be binding upon future owners of the property. This consent is In consideration of APPROVAL OF A MINOR LAND PARTITION. IMPROVEMENT, DEDICATION OR OTHER ACTION: 1) AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENT OF STRAWBERRY LANE, INCLUDING CURB, GUTTER, PAVING, SIDEWALKS AND STORM DRAIN; AND AGREE NOT TO REMONSTRATE TO THE FORMATION OF SUCH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; AND AGREE TO PAY ASSIGNED SHARE OF SUCH DESIGNATED IMPROVEMENT COSTS. Rron eco"Ied OFFICIAL RECORDS MAR 0 7 1994 /~At KATHLEEN S, SECKETT CLERK and RECORDER IGNATURE ATE ,r- SIGNATURE r DATE - STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson ) lv io Ss A kevmei, On this 0 dayof rt°hrL)6ru ,tg-vbeforemspersonallyappowed, RC~'rCWIr) whosaidently was proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) Is (are) subscribed to this Instrument, and acknowledged that he (she)(they) executed the same. ~//dam o -0 411AJ LS/~L,-ILtit OFFICIAL SEAL I TAf(Y PU8UCil`qiR OREGON p I!`-KY E. SLOCUM MY COMMISSIO IRES: -96 S;;;-.Ii N1 C3?647 IAS+' ~ 57 CfB~f'1 i l , . ' LI I,UUt'. Lr - MAl i City or Asnia d Field Office ❑ Cour U R BAN DEVELOPMENT ~RVICES, LLC 9, LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES m;' March 19, 2008 Ashland Planning Commission Attn: Derek Severson, Senior Planner 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: 500 Strawberry Lane; Additional Testimony - No New Evidence Based upon the comments heard by Commissioners and neighbors during the March 11 `h 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants have attempted to address a number of these concerns and would like to submit the following as part of the record of Planning Action #2008-000182. Parking: Unlike the R-1 zones, one additional on-street parking is not required in the RR- .5 zone. This is likely due to the fact the parcel sizes in the RR-.5 zones are much larger and on-site parking on acre parcels can easily be provided. In addition, areas zoned RR-.5 are typically located on physically constrained lands where density is low and wider streets are generally not acceptable as they can cause significant earth disturbances. This is the case in Hitt Road and parts of Strawberry Lane as their improvements are less than 4 years old, but there are areas that have 10'+ cuts and fills. Regardless, these improvements, other than planting strips, "comply" with current City street standards. Specifically, Hitt Road is a Neighborhood Residential Street and is 22' wide which allows parking on one side of the street as long as the daily volumes are less than 150 vehicle trips (See Ashland Street Standards Handbook, Page 20). As planned, there will only be eight single family homes (1 existing house, 2 proposed lots and 5 existing lots as part of the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision) for a total of 80 vehicle trips. Again, Hitt Road complies with current standards and allows for parking on the applicants' side of the street. Nevertheless, the applicants would be willing to agree that one additional on-site guest parking space for each lot will be provided if desired by the Ashland Planning Commission. The applicants are willing to accept a condition of approval requiring the final Deed Restrictions, submitted with the Final Plan, include the third parking space to be identified on each lot's building plans at time of submittal. 700 Mistletoe Road #204 1 Ashland, OR 97520 phone 541.482.3334 1 fax 541.482.3336 58 Building Envelope Adjustments: The attached "revised" site plan identifies two building envelope adjustments. Each adjustment was specifically mentioned during the March 11'h, 2008 public hearing by either the neighbors, staff or Planning Commissioners. The adjustments are as follows: 1) Lot #2: During the hearing, the applicants proposed adjusting the southern building envelope boundary on Lot #2 an additional 10' to the south in order to better accommodate Solar Access. Currently the proposal is 30' and the applicants would like to adjust it to 20'. The actual side yard setback standard in this zone is 5'. 2) Lot #1: The original application plans show a 10' side yard street setback along Hitt Road, but during the hearing Commissioner Marsh asked if the building envelope could be increased. The applicants agreed it could and the "revised" site plan now shows a 15' setback in an attempt to solidify the applicant's answer. There was also a comment raised regarding the restrictive nature of Lot #1's building envelope. Although the applicants concur the building envelope is restrictive due to the site's trees, rock outcroppings and the adjacent neighbor's views, the building envelope remains quite large and can easily accommodate a variety of house styles and sizes. Unlike in an R-1-5 (5,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum) or R-1-10 (10,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum) zone, both subject Lots #1 and #2 are %2 acre in size and therefore their building envelopes are significantly larger. Hitt Road Gate: The applicants agree with Mrs. Domino's request in her March 10'h, 2008 letter the gate on Hitt Road needs to be relocated further up the street and away from Lot #5's driveway in order to allow vehicular back-up and tum-around movements to occur. The applicants propose the gate be relocated an additional 20' to the south in order to easily accommodate this possible movement. In conclusion, the applicants and project consulting team appreciate the opportunity to clarify the issues raised during the March 11 h, 2008 public hearing. Sincerely, Mark Knox, Project Plann L MAR 1 9 7008 Clry 01;- Sni nd Field 0 Office ❑ Coul 700 Mistletoe Road #204 1 Ashland, OR 97520 1 phone 541.482.3334 1 fax 541.482.3336 59 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO MATERIALS SUBMITTED WHILE RECORD WAS OPEN 60 RECEIVED MAR26@08 cny of Ashland U R BAN DEVELOPMENT nTM9, LLC LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 24'h, 2008 Ashland Planning Commission Attn: Derek Severson, Senior Planner 51 Winbum Way Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: 500 Strawberry Lane; Response - No New Evidence The following is a response to Catherine & Lou Dimino's (423 Strawberry Lane) and Debra Kutcher's (400 Strawberry Lane) March 17`h, 2008 written testimony regarding Planning Action #2008-00182, 500 Strawberry Lane, Robert & Laura McLellan, Applicants: 1) Assertions the application does not meet Ashland Street Standards (pages #1-4): The subject property fronts onto two existing improved public streets that were designed and constructed in 2002 under the regulations and standards of the Ashland Street Standards Handbook. All civil engineering plans and the street's construction were monitored by the Ashland Public Works, Planning and Fire Department staff. To the applicant's knowledge, the street standards have not been amended since adoption. • The application meets the street standards as it relates to street connectivity. Both Strawberry Lane and the portion of Hitt Road abutting the proposed lots of the subdivision provide direct access. An additional street or alley connecting Strawberry to Hitt is unnecessary and would be inconsistent with the other recently platted subdivisions in this area. The applicants are not aware of any other homes in the Strawberry Lane area that were required to have secondary ingress/egress where the home has direct access onto a public street. • The application meets the street standards as it relates to sharing driveways where feasible. The applicants have attempted to design the subdivision in context with the sites natural features, man made surroundings and zoning regulations. This is most evident by the number of trees being preserved, the thoughtful placement of driveway locations, the lack of large cut and fill areas, the jockeying of building envelopes to preserve neighbor views, and the placement of open space to preserve views from Downtown Ashland. The 61 applicants contend the driveways as proposed are very reasonable considering their locations and limited impact on the street. In addition, it should be understood this standard wasn't necessarily intended for rural properties, but for developments with higher density with much higher street volumes where conflict rates are much higher (i.e., Oak Street - between "A" and "B" Streets). Overall, the applicants contend there will be little to no impacts. • Parking is available on Hitt Road - now. As previously noted in the March 19'h letter, Hitt Road was designed and built to City Street Standards and allows on-street parking on one side. Currently there are no street parking signs as there are no homes along the street. Secondly, one on-street parking space is not required to be provided by the applicants due to the zone's rural designation (assumed 1/2 acre minimum lots could easily provide on-site parking). Nevertheless, the applicants have agreed to a condition of approval requiring one additional on-site parking space be provided on-site. • Assertion a turn around is necessary at the top of Hitt Road. Once the subdivision is finalized, the driveway serving Lot #5 will be installed and the subject gate relocated allowing a second turn around. One currently exists across the street from Lot #5. • Hitt Road improvements do not need to be extended to the end of the property to allow additional parking for hikers. The application is not proposing a "developable" lot in this area and thus no impacts associated with the development will be using the upper section of Hitt Road beyond the gate. This area has been designated as common open space by the applicants and is only accessible by Water Department employees on a limited basis and trail users. Public parking is available on one side of the street below the gate. . • Shade trees along Hitt Road are necessary. Based upon the extreme hillside conditions of the adjacent embankment behind the sidewalk along Hitt Road, the applicants disagree. The applicants Landscape Architect has evaluated this possibility and have concluded this was not an appropriate site for street trees for a variety of reasons primarily dealing with long term tree instability. Regardless, there are many large and medium sized trees above the embankment that already function as street trees. • Street Exceptions (please refer to Applicant's findings of fact). Overall, the applicants contend to further "widen" the area beyond the gate is unnecessary as there is an extremely limited chance for future development that warrants its development. If ever widened, the outcome would be an excessive cut bank more severe than the cut banks along lower Hitt Road. Again, the applicants will agree, as already noted in the staff report, to a condition of approval to sign in favor of a future Local Improvement District for the area of Hitt Road beyond the gate if the Ashland City Council forms it. Overall, the applicants are not necessarily arguing there is a demonstrable difficulty in doing the work, but instead are requesting to defer the improvement until warranted. 2. Assertions the application should not be allowed 20% lot coverage based upon entire site, but instead individual lots (pages #4-9). RECEIVED >»►4~ a ~►►»a► ►n v.o_ a..►_o►»»>► ► ►►»>.»>.»>~~R►26 2008 62 City of Ashland Community Development • There are variety of examples where the Ashland Planning Commission has based the overall site's lot coverage to be spread amongst the subdivided lots - including two of the adjacent subdivisions where Mrs. Demino recently constructed her home and also exceeded the 20% maximum lot coverage (23%). The general principal behind this decision is the ability to create cluster housing in order to retain large sections of open space or preserve unique features of a property (i.e., wetlands, hilltop ridgelines, view sheds, etc.). In these cases, the homes are "clustered" on smaller lots even though the home's general footprint and driveways generally remain the same. The alternative scenario would be planning applicants that do not designate common open space, but instead incorporate it into the private lots to create lots that are larger and provide more buffer between other homes that typically would be more profitable. Unfortunately, the end result would be suburban sprawl. NOTE: It should be understood the subject application does not have to provide common open space nor are the applicants requesting a density bonus. Also, the application is being processed under the Performance Standards Options process, which "reduces" density instead of the Standard Subdivision process that allows significantly "more" density (4.65 acres 1.5 acres = 9 developable lots with no common open space). The applicants are self-imposing only 5 developable lots with a common open space lot that is very visible from many areas of Ashland. Based upon preliminary conceptual designs, the common open space lot could easily be designated a home site, as suggested by Mrs. Dimino, but the applicants believe that it would have created a blight on Ashland's picturesque backdrop. Finally, the designation of Lot #6 as a common lot vs. a private lot is a personal choice of the applicants that will likely result in less profitability for their property. • The submitted site plans have both specific and conceptual information that may be creating confusion. The property lines, building envelopes, height restrictions and driveway locations are "specific". The identified house footprints, house sizes and driveway turn around areas are "conceptual". Each conceptual element is necessary to illustrate to the Planning Commission, Staff, Applicants, and the consulting team how all of the specific elements will likely work together. For example, the conceptual placement of a house on Lot #1 and how the proposed height restrictions may impact the ability to construct a typical home. Without these conceptual scenarios, the end result could be a home site that is either impossible to build on, is illogical, or requires significant site disturbances. The end result is a comprehensive plan with specific boundaries, much more regulated then the City's minimum standards, but with enough flexibility to allow future home owners the right to build their home based upon their specific desires and needs. • The definition of "coverage" is located under Section 18.08.160 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and is as follows: 18.08.160 Coverage, lot or site RECEIVED ~AR 26,6 Zoos City of Ashland 63 Community Development Total area of all structures, paved driveways, or other soil disturbances that will not allow normal water infiltration. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. The applicants Contend the definition of "coverage" clearly allows lot coverage to be based upon "lot" OR "site". Not withstanding the general purpose and benefit as described above or the many decisions already made by the Planning Commission and City Council allowing coverage to be based upon the entire site of a subdivision, the definition is clear that lot coverage can consider the entire subdivision's site. In conclusion, the applicants are aware of Mrs. Dimino's primary interest of limiting visual impacts from her new home. Although the applicants would like to have had the same opportunity to offer design advice to their new neighbors in order to minimize their view impacts, the reality is each future property owner will design their home based upon their own personal needs and values, similar to the opportunities Mr. and Mrs. Dimino recently enjoyed during the construction of their new home. As such, the future home on Lot #1 will likely look much different than the "conceptual" footprint and "conceptual" driveway shown on the submitted site plans. The applicants have attempted to address each reasonable request of Mrs. Dimino and are willing to continue to do so. Again, the applicants and project consulting team appreciate the opportunity to clarify the issues raised during the March 11 th, 2008 public hearing as well as the letters submitted by Mrs, Dimino and Mrs. Kutcher on March 17th, 2008. Sincerely, Mark Knox, Project Planner RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2008 City of Ashland Community Development 64 Page 1 of 1 Derek Severson - parking spaces atop Hitt Road From: "debra allenkutcher" <seabiscuittravel@gmail.com> To: <dereks@ashland.or.us> Date: 6/8/2008 8:29 PM Subject: parking spaces atop Hitt Road CC: <robertc@i mclellancreative.com> Dear Dereks, I am so concerned in regards to the proposed four parking spaces at the top of Hitt Road. 1 live, just about, at the corner of Hitt road and Strawberry Lane. My last correspondence stated my concerns of increased traffic on Hitt Road for bikes, hikers and bears. With the creation of four parking spaces, are no voices heard in the wilderness. This would create more traffic, not only for the people who park but also for those who might look for a space, already occupied. Visitor parking for the residences would bnale taken care of by the individual homes. Please, no more traffic. Safety issues are at hand. Hikers can hike and park on the regular streets. I believe the city owns property on Strawberry Lane across from Birdsong. If additional parking became necessary, perhaps four spaces would be created on that property instead of private property. Thank you for your consideration in this very important matter, Debra Allen Kutcher 400 Strawberry Lane Ashland, Oregon Jliri P: j 1-fd ~ ]Coup 65 file://C:\Documents and Settings\seversod\Local Settings\Temp\GW}0000I.HTM 6/9/2008 U MAR City of ASI-11:; Comments from Catherine & Lou Dimino GpUn 423 Strawberry Lane Field ❑ OfflCe ❑ PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura LOCATION: 500 Strawberry Lane 391 E 08 AC Tax Lot #201 ("I" refers to Catherine Dimino, and "we" refers to Lou & Catherine Dimino) The comments made in the Planning Commission's March 11, 2008 packet are a misrepresentation of Mrs. Dimino's concerns. I told Mr. Knox that there was a density of 1.2 dwellings per acre for subdivisions and I suggested that lot 1 not be developed. I disagreed with his comment that not developing lot 6 was better for the neighborhood, but agreed that if lot 6 required to be developed under the hillside ordinances then developing lot 1 was better for the McLellans because the lot was more marketable. I requested a copy of the plan so I could study the proposal and make comments. Mr. McLellan and separately Mr. Knox denied the request because it was a preliminary plan. I expected they would contact me and give me an opportunity to comment on a later plan. On March 6, 2008, I went to the Tree Commission with 2 requests and spoke to Mr. McLellan & Mr. Knox before the meeting. They said my request to remove mistletoe from the trees and to replace removed trees with new trees was reasonable, and they incorporated the comments into their presentation. 1 saw the proposal for lot I for the first time that evening and I was shocked to see what they are proposing. The conceptual design for lot I is particularly unattractive to us because it is too close to Hitt Road. It ruins our view from the family room, impacts the view from my office and back bedroom, and makes the house imposing on Hitt Road. The conceptual design severely limits usage of the front or back yard, depending on what is considered the front of the house. The building envelope is too restrictive, which reduces the design options. We would like it to be as large as possible to give the lot owners flexibility in the design and placement of a house. We can't guarantee that the owners will build something we like, but if they are given more options they might. Having the house so close to Hitt Road ruins the sense of scale for the character of the neighborhood. The current proposal unnecessarily requests 26% lot coverage in an area where the limit is 20%, whereas a house and driveway can easily be built with 20%. We would also like the conceptual site plan for lot I to consider an optional driveway from Hitt Road in the event the lot owners' house design requires this and a variance is not required. 66 The steeper portions of the site are along the roadside at the north and east of the site. It is an odd choice to place the restrictive envelope in an area that is more difficult to build. The application should adhere to the lot coverage rules for individual lots, especially when a change to this rule for one of the lots adversely affects a neighbor. The request for amounts greater than 20% are not due to any hardships, but are self-imposed conditions. The following is not a request, but illustrates that there are other reasonable alternatives. One solution is to make lots 1, 2 & 3 larger. Another solution for lots 2 & 3 is to use the McLellans' current driveway as a common driveway. The McLeltans can own the driveway, with the other 2 lots having smaller driveways accessible from the common driveway. The deeds for the affected lots can specify maintenance responsibilities. Changes in the lot coverage rule should be negotiated with the city at the time the owner has a house design. Because of a misunderstanding of what was considered for impervious surfaces (i.e., house roof line, not its footprint), we requested that our plan be considered with a pervious driveway. Instead the Community Development Dept. granted us tot coverage of 23% and said we could not have any more than 23%. We still built a pervious driveway. The location of the gate is in a poor place. If anyone has to back out of lot 5 driveway, it will be very difficult to navigate the turn. Moreover anyone proceeding up the public way past the location of the old gate cannot turn around. Consideration should be given to the possibility that the owners may want visitors to park on the street. Also consideration should be given to members of the community that park on Hitt Road for a hike. Currently, they park on the common driveway off of Hitt Road. Once the 3 Strawberry Meadows homes are developed, they will not be able to park there. We've observed that people tend to park near the gate. The sidewalk should continue past the gate so we can get around the gate easily. There is a discrepancy between the Conceptual Site Plan and the Tree Removal and Protection plan. The Conceptual Site Plan for lot I does not contain the 2 street trees to the left of the proposed driveway. It's unclear whether these trees are going to be preserved. While they are much smaller than the large one, they should be preserved. Is it possible to get an idea when the mistletoe will be removed from some of the very visible larger trees? The Tree Commission included a condition of approval regarding removing the mistletoe. I'm particularly concerned about the tree in front of our common driveway, which 1 brought to Mr. McLellan's attention when he showed us the preliminary plan. [This is not a request, but a comment to the applicants] Less restrictive envelopes & fewer deed restrictions will make the lots more desirable. CC&Rs can address the restrictions the applicants want, and the definition of a Design Review Committee can deal with house designs, and view protection issues. It is much more desirable to put 67 most of their restrictions in the CC&Rs, since homeowners may want to change with the times. 68 INFOPWTION TECNN' WY 108 771 DIMINO a 423 STRAWBERRY 107 FrweN Am T.. W Q ft. `p< 103 t.. iot Xlme.n U Cryl ft 9 101 109 110 ..nma Sun. F.O. C. Po 1 106 n® cftw M, Opltl XN / JKIUpnNY STRAWBERRY °peinb _ - X•pu. RNw - - On.00 C.. TN 203 204 202 300 I 400 m~.Leiltxn 504, q 205 Ashland 503 01 Z _ - 200`. - 201 i I 206 ~ZC 505. 500 208 506 207 507 508 JACKSON COUNTY !!ice llif mV bEmpE an.60F lmlebsfe wngw ey.t[gm Ceu+y Frpn. venery 261 200 q.s.co.~p[appc«.+r un~pl pq.q ~7~y ,p..wmarr Ia e~m~., apwole. a 0 9 U LSU6 W brole CVery. Mn anm q 69 ,.NJIpIFp...q.>Np q R.,,.•. a~; PkVY [Mtb vlN CpkeMall~e y-dpp pyyt I.Ipp([u1pOMY11/t0008.500}~M ~q'vgrieU XCMW LV[ypq Derek Severson - Input on McLellan Sub-IVvision Paget From: "Scott Dixon" <scott_dixon@ccountry.net> To: <DEREKS@ASHLAND.OR.US> Date: 3/6108 2:18:22 PM Subject: Input on McLellan Sub-Division Derek, My name is Rodney Scott Dixon. I own the lot at 163 Hitt Rd. that is opposite from the proposed McLellan sub-division. I received notice from the city that there is a public hearing on the sub-division on March 11, 2008. 1 would like to raise a concern, but I am currently in Antigua in the Caribbean and won't return to Ashland until 3/12/08. My concern regards the wildfire danger posed by the new sub-division, and in particular the open space of that sub-division that is across from my lot. I would like to see heavy thinning within the 100 foot secondary fire break zone from 163, 173 and 183 Hitt Rd. and substantial thinning within the rest of the open space. My experience with the open space of Strawberry Meadows that is near my lot is that open space tends to be forgotten and ignored. The McLellan open space could pose a significant wildfire risk to the house I am planning on building at 163 Hitt Rd. Since the land will be owned by the sub-division HOA, I will have no right nor authority to enforce thinning. I would like to have a requirement placed on the HOA to have thinning done on all lots and open space before any lots are sold, with a requirement to do further remedial thinning every 3 -5 years. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to get a signed letter to you from the Caribbean prior to my return. Will an email to you suffice? If not an email, can I send a FAX? (If so, what is your FAX number). If neither of these will work, can Mark Knowles, who is doing planning work for me, submit a request on my behalf? Please send me an email and let me know which methods will work? (Hopefully, an email will suffice). I can expand my request to include some citations of wildfire requirements and suggested thinning operations. Thanks, Scott Dixon CC: "Scott Dixon" <scott_dixon@ccountry.net>, "Joan Cresse" <joancresse@ccountry.net> 70 107 - +'I - - 1 INFORIMTION TEL"N0.CAY f 1 DIXOW163 MITT • 101'' 109 1,11 110 103' 106 Front Ca Lp W ' ' r. ~ ®MIpM1Pryl4tl FUN.. 1 ! E~ L' iu W OutRrw Tn WNa . gTRAWBERRY - cn unn. lWNFi. C., F l ' EpYF'eln, •i' oaa Ni 203'. 204 202' 1 ! 300, . 400 'M°ieAYOi IYENN . ~ Fr_ LL 1 N.FW RIYM TYE.1 504 205. - 503• { j r 20, ^ i. - - EAshland { G Zoe ~ ~,~LK 505 500* ' 506 L 208 507 - 508•. - .4r0, c JACKSON ~r COUNTY 201 <200;' _ Oregon / t - llb iMp"ElfM On.agW 6NMY tTiplB~p Ja<Yam COU.yfmna nMty r _ ~eoucsa..uf><sonCWp mmn ruq ~on.~em.h' Tl.re era m 7I NOP.rWeO an]¢,IIXIBJ:'N3PMPM UYq wappcluormury.erp C!: PI.6 rpt)ife nM pylre.MY.e gaM(Vpr Comments on 3/11/08 Meeting for Planning Action #2008-00182: 500 Strawberry Lane We, Rodney Scott Dixon and Joan E. Cresse, are the owners of 163 Hitt Road, which is across Hitt Road from the proposed 500 Strawberry Lane sub-division. We have 4 concerns about this sub-division and request the planning committee to consider our concerns and incorporate effective solutions into the rules of the sub-division or the homeowner's association CC&Rs. Concerns: 1. Wildfire Hazards 2. Housefire Hazards 3. External Lighting 4. Highly-Reflective Building Material 1. Wildfire Hazards Portions of the 500 Strawberry Lane property are within the 50-60 feet primary fuel break zones of the building envelopes of 163, 173, and 183 Hitt Road. Section 18.62.090.B.3 requires the owner to establish a primary fuel break up to his property line and encourages the cooperation of adjacent property owners if the primary fuel break extends beyond the property line (as it does in my case). Section 18.62.090.B.4 requires the establishment of a secondary fuel break zone that extends another 100 feet beyond he primary fuel break or up to the property line. This 100 feet zone for existing Hitt Road properties will overlap significant portions of the proposed 500 Strawberry Lane Sub-Division. My concern is that open space areas tend to be ignored by a home owner association. I have been working with the Strawberry Lane Meadows Home Owners' Association to reduce the fuel load in the nearby open space of the Strawberry Meadows Sub-Division and know from first-hand experience that this work can be easily overlooked. I will have no influence over the Homeowner's Association that will be established to maintain the open space of the proposed 500 Strawberry Lane Sub-Division. I would like to have the following fuel break requirements (derived from the similar requirements of the Strawberry Meadows Sub-Division) added to the requirements or CC&Rs of the 500 Strawberry Lane Sub-Division. Items #1 and #2 would apply to the open space and all lots offered for sale. Items #347 would apply only to the open space. I. Remove all dead woody material on the ground and standing within vegetation 2. Prune trees to 10 feet from the ground, remove ladder fuels (dead lower limbs and accumulations under trees). 3. Remove and/or thin manzanita and other shrubs to a distance between individuals five times their height. 4. Remove trees and shrubs that are in less than optimal health regardless of size 5. Thin trees to create 10 foot space between crowns 6. Thinning process repeated every 3-5 years. 7. Initial thinning and removal to be accomplished before any lot in the sub-division is offered for sale (to ensure this work is done in a timely fashion and not delayed for many years). 2. Housefire Hazards Since 500 Strawberry Lane is within a Wildfire Zone, I would like to have all new construction incorporate fire sprinklers within the structure. This requirement exists for the Strawberry Meadows Sub- Comments on Planning Action 02008-00182: 500 Strawberry Lane 72 Division which surrounds the 500 Strawberry Sub-Division. This will help prevent a fire within one structure from destroying the entire neighborhood with a spreading wildfire. 3. External Lighting External lighting of structures can be very intrusive and detract from the rural nature of the area. It can also be highly visible at night to the other residents of Ashland. I would like to see a restriction placed on external lighting that prohibits the use of bare, un-shielded external bulbs. Lighting should also be directed towards the ground and should be designed to minimize the intensity of light and the exposure to light of neighboring houses. This rule (or something similar) is in effect via the CC&Rs for the surrounding lots of the Strawberry Lane Meadows Homeowners' Association. 4. Highly-Reflective Building Material It would be desirable to prohibit the use of highly reflective building materials, such as light-colored metal roofs or siding. These materials can be a nuisance for neighbors and will make a hillside house more visible to the.residents of Ashland during the day. This rule (or something similar) is in effect via the CC&Rs for the surrounding lots of the Strawberry Lane Meadows Homeowners' Association. Comments on Planning Action #2008-00182: 500 Strawberry Lane 73 ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW March 6, 2003 PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura DESCRIPTION: Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 08 AC; TAX LOT: 201 Recommendation: I ) That at the time of building permit application for the individual lots, if a tree that has been previously approved for removal due to its location within an approved building envelope, said tree(s) shall be mitigated for on the subject lot prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residence. 2) That the applicant shall address the mistletoe in the Oak trees on the property and the project Arborist shall recommend process and amount of future mistletoe removal on the subject property. Department of Community Development Tel: 541 A88-5350 CITY OF 51 an Way TTY: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-7J5-2900 ASHLAND W W w.ashlandmr.uJ 74 ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (Nick) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Tree Commission on March 6, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the office of Community Development and Engineering Services (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. At such Pubic Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. Request for a Minor Land Partition to create two lots for a property located at 938 Oak Street. Exception to Street Standards to match new sidewalk to existing sidewalk. Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, rive-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at,1500 Stt ewberryALe a the application also requests a Physical 8 Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Community Development Director Bill Molnar Publish: 2/27/2008 Date e-mailed: 2/21/2008 Purchase Order: 81055 75 CITY OF -ASH LAIV D Memo DATE: March 7, 2008 TO: Derek Severson, Associate Planner FROM: Shawn Branaugh, Fire Inspector RE: 500 Strawberry Lane Today I reviewed the "Fire Prevention and Control Plan" that you provided me for the six-lot subdivision project at 500 Strawberry Lane. I find the Fire Prevention and Control Plan meets the requirements of the Ashland Municipal Code, Section 18.62.090 and therefore approve the plan. Please contact me at 552-2246 if you have any questions. CC. File UAl? 0 7 : , C'+ty of /Asniend Field ❑ Office ❑ Court ASHLAND FIRE le RESCUE Tex: A82-2770 88-531 455 Sisk'ryou Boulevard Fax: 541-089-5319 . Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 900.735-2909 w .ashland.or.us 76 - V Z F ____----_T / 1 j i i III ij W I . I - i 'i r I K O t-------- 1 I / Primary 40' Fuel Break Zone / i . _i_,;_ ~ Q N V I I 118 a- O t r N I -if T_:~ _ 1'1 I C N I awiweme.eA ' i I j - r 1- , - _ 77 _ I' I Z ` O. I I domineer, 7uv F.Break Zone °e°pO°°i° I 1 - TI t I 0 O OPEN SPACE conc[M~L Curmltly MSnepee Zone a I•i - I - do w w eTS I r I ~ < O O i H!% T I ~ u FOOTS I ! II < O t- c I V) H Z j I I W Q S a O Z x l ` I I / / PdMryyy44~01 Fuel Break Zone I .d . vr~R' I n. pMOro~.no rA I I '''a' ~ ,J6' nn°~iwoWe tr~t~ K b ---:°•I x \ ..o.w.rnaseI ] i I 1 tam Secondary t00' Fuel Break Zane i-• / ~ \ CunaNy Manapod Zone I Rpun4e by Neighbor ~ \ ilk - I m I noa n.r.wa / aaa mwe"iiye°°e.a~0ies 1l 1 Dena mo-e - - - (F)P[JIpFNea I ~ y~ I w• wwww~wea. ? ~ O ".j I N / / H.l 4i ,J S I D a m Secondary 100' Fuel Break Zone Ia°0 Cumm" Manalpeezone r OT 1 F ielS ry;rl I c u a .sla.?s I r- ` Ike \ I r l I xaro / \ , < as v z t\ aam a."'J' ~ CunentN MSrteped Zone ~ ~ Re.Ixbn Dab: w Currently Managed ZOnaI Mam146,2000 I / \ \ p 41 is I g c P am ~ y TT I I I I ! WMF d _ t m I i Scold 130'O• _ .L asae j `Or H y r'RR CA + - C 9 ~F N R # Ism I 40 Fuel Break Zone - Remove all dead and dying w Fire Prevention and Control Notes Erosion Control Notes vegetation and thin fast burning species, creating Z w 0 Z Isolated Islands of vegetation, so that there are no a ve Z t. Alter °xcavalbn andror vegebtbn removal, contractor Shall p t. P.W. fuel rtes' xoro wnnln 6'of atmaurea Irlcbd'vq Backe. irrterlockin canopies. Limb all trees to 6' above rode ` O 0 t s y ImmedbteNra+aBehte all areas diriurted by construction. 2. CUtall gressea andweetlab6'Oebre June 1581exhyvar. a except ~ of islands of vegetation d a. Thin three am Shmba to prevem interlocking caropbs. 2Emsbn control eeed mix shalt be apptietl to ercaswtm over , ` . g y''M1 ' 'lli rcro ° s W Maintain ~ r or 1;; .100.0% a min OwWd hear munch. fmna¢er, one bckt0er per 100' Fuel Break Zone - Remove all dead and dying F.a aa d Sh t p0 " 10. Of vegetation u Z vR ; O manubcwren apc bom. < UPS Oftrea shall 10. minimum omumwlNl n 45' D'ulaoroc any y aetmMectuen rc, branch vegetation, clear sufficient vege vegetation to to reduce educe fuel s ° a p Seeding shall occur cur beMeen March I and May t or Nwambar 2 7 4.N11hin1W'br.doada,, am lowertrcddermae ubranchseut brches6 1 and0ecember 1, noeu bmental Ihiganon Shall beregWrod. 08de throughout 700'Z00@, creating vegetation islands r.i. r W 0 N Z Undo r moryahwb; deadwoo.od, antl e. Emalan controlmk avanabb imm sa65eed- a68ppropriafe. t U i O i shag be MBurned te retluca lnudockirp abnde offset Morning Plant °p°0°8' Currently Managed Zone - Vegetabon indesi nated ve uyQ fi.Provbe lp'-ma pass Nor.Um cbmnce above mad SUdace Rrfre Sepcus Pounds Bar Scar y g Field ❑ Office ❑ Court hkbs b uMec Bmmue tgmeaeeW 24 areas has been removed in accordance to the 6. AA exacng trees Indicated on plans shall remain omess shorm Thfolum heurn. Hykon 10 Standards for Wildfire Lands. Orgoirgannual within a proposed building envelope am approved by me Goy, vllpla myums var. hlbub 6 maintenance per plan, shall be required to continue febuory 6, 2000 compliance with the Fire Prevention and Control Plan. FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PLAN / 77 EROSION CONTROL PLAN L-3 ATTN: NICK - CLASSIFIED PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE OF SITE VISIT There will be a site visit by the Ashland Planning Commission on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. to tour the property at 500 Strawberry Lane. (Planning Action 2008-00182). . By order of Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Publish: 3/8/2008 E-mailed: 3/5/2008 P. O. No. 75853 78 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 103 ~PA-2008.00182 391 E08AC 107 'IPA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 202 ASHLAND CITY OF BARNES KENNETH J/SUZANNE H DARLING KAREN / 340 PIONEER ST 523 STRAWBERRY LN ✓ 490 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 110 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 506 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 109 DIMINO LUCIEN AICATHERINE DIXON RODNEY SCOTT TRUSTEE ET AL DONOVAN MICHAEL JIMARIE B 423 STRAWBERRY LN ✓ 838 BLACKBERRY LN x 320 HEMLOCK LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 111 ✓ PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 206 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 400 HWOSCHINSKY PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL KNECHT GERALD R TRUSTEE ET AL KUTCHER WILLIAM S/DEBRA A 443 STRAWBERRY LN 144 CALUMET AVE A\'- 9 J3 7 400 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 6SAN AN M CA 94960 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 106 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 209 PA-2008-09.462 391 E08AC 201 LAYSER GAIA/BORGIAS DARREN LOVETT RICHARD PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL MC L N R/LAURA A WRIGHT- 500 PHELPS ST PO BOX 427 50 TRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 508 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 503 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 203 MCDANIEL JOHN SCOTT v g OT AL N MARGARET J BROWN TRUSTEE ASH OLEM CONSTANCE W TRUSTEE ET BOX 924 ~ ASHLAND OR 97520 WASHINGTON D~ 20002 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 205 / PA-2008-00182 39 AA PA-2008-00182 391E08DB 200 STEIN GERALD W TRUSTEE ET AL✓ STROM HO#y~kRD"E TRUSTEE ET AL TRY-W GROUP LIMITED PARTNER 806 CYPRESS POINT LP 13~ Y 3411 WALDA PL 100 S E CRYSTAL LAKE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 v2 LQS-ANGELES CA 90068 CORVALLIS OR 97333 X PA-2008-00182 391 EOBAC 505 ✓ PA-2008.00182 391 E08AC 504 WAY ANTHONY E TRUSTEE ET AL WILSON JAY/SUZANNE 400 I ASHLAND OR 97520 SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 Z/ ~7 /°/'7 :~Y~ZI~ I~n~ ~nof /.-,?0 ,1n N6) ~1 C~ 1 r CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 2008 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center. 1 175 E. Main Street. Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: John Sirombere. Chair Cate I Iartzell. Council Liaison. absent due to quasi- Dave Douener judicial items Michael Dawkins Mike Morris Staff Present:: John Fields Bill Molnar. Cmnnwnity Development Director Pam Marsh Derek Severson. Associate Planner Melanie klindlin Richard A iecllo. Cite Attorney Absent Member: Tom Dimitre. excused Sue Yates. Executive Secretary 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Stromberg said the first item of business after Public Forum will be to adopt the change to the Planning Commission Rules. It was announced at the Hearings Board that Planning Action 2008-00182. 500 Strawberry Line, would be heard at tonight's meeting. Affected property owners and interested parties were contacted by phone and e-mail. The hearing is scheduled as the second public hearing this evening. Fields/Dotterrer m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS Molnar announced the Council will be deliberating on the Land Use Ordinance amendments at a special study session on Monday, March 17. 2008. The next two public workshops for the Croman Mill Redevelopment site will be held Wednesday and Thursday, March 19ih and 20" at the Bellview Grange at 7:00 p.m. Both are general meetings open to the public, however, on Thursday the Planning Commission and City Council have been invited to be first to ask questions of the consultants. 4. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes: Februarv 12, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes February 267 2008 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes Mindlin/Dotterrer m/s to approve the consent agenda. Voice Vote: Approved. 5. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. 6. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PLANNING ACTION: 2008.00053 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 201 South Mountain Avenue APPLICANT: Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture AIA DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 19,375 square foot auxiliary gym and music suite addition on the Ashland High School campus located at 201 South Mountain Avenue. The application proposes demolition of the existing 10,800 square foot auxiliary gym building and of the 5,600 square foot music suite; renovation of the 22,024 square foot main gym building; and a reconfiguration of the parking area located to the east of the existing gym building. The net increase in building area is 2,975 square feet. The application also includes a request for a Variance to the required sideyard setback along South Mountain Avenue; the applicants propose to construct a ramp, stairs and landings to the property line where a minimum ten-foot sideyard setback is required. Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit Marsh walked through the campus a few times since the last meeting. Dotterrer and Fields had a site visit but no ex pane contacts. Morris attended a couple ot'basketball games in the gym since the last meeting. Dawkins has run through the area 80 since the last meeting, but had no ex pane contacts. Mindlin and St'mmberg had no es parte contacts. Stronlberg viewed the existing building front S. Mountain Avenue. There were no challenges of bias or conflict of interest. STAFF REPORT Severson reviewed the application and items from last month. The existing parking situation is an item that stood out to Staff. The Site Review Chapter looks at bringing a non-conforming situation (parkin,) into conformance proportionate to the building addition. The building addition is relatively small at 1.5 percent. The applicants have argued and Staff concurs that by reconfiguring the parking area to meet standards. by improving the landscaping, and the presentation of the building to the street, Staffs concerns have been met. The Staff Report discusses the amount of existing parking being less than the amount needed for the stadium and gynt, however the use is not being intensified and there is no increase in parking demand so Staff is not requiring anything additional to address the parking. Severson suggested removing Condition 4 requiring the stadium and gym not be used concurrently. However, Staff wouldn't want to preclude having a gym class in the gym and PE class on the stadium field. Is there a way to avoid conflicting peak demand situations while still allowing the facilities to be used? The applicants submitted a site circulation plan since last month. They are showing accessible routes coming from the reconfigured parking area, bike access, additional bike parking, secondary and primary entries. They are proposing landscape ' upgrades including trees along Mountain Avenue. y Severson would also recommend removal of Condition 8E (duplicates 7G). With those changes. Staff would recommend approval with the attached Conditions. Stromberg noted that there was an evidentiary public hearing held on February 12, 2008. PUBLIC HEARING Ken Ogden. Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture, AIA, 2950 Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, stated the design came after several months of intensive input front teachers, administrators and community members. Ogden discussed all of the positive aspects of the application and how they feel they achieved spaces that exemplify and are conducive to tine educational process. JULI DICHIRO, Superintendent of Schools, 885 Siskiyou Boulevard, reiterated O.-den's comments. One of the criteria for the architects was to make the current gym a better educational space as well as a great place to see a gone. The goal of the PE program is to promote lifelong fitness. She re-emphasized the amount of public input they have had throughout the process. DiChiro added that they would feel comfortable not exceeding the capacity (3000 people) of the stadium with any combined usages. Currently, the stadium is used about five times a year for football games. If a turf field replaces the football field in the future, there would be a lot more use by community groups and high school functions. She could envision a Pop Warner football game going on at the same time as a play in the theater. She feels comfortable assuring the Commission that they would not exceed the stadium capacity they have now. They would like the flexibility to use a variety of venues as long as the capacity limit is not exceeded. Mush asked if the bus parking would be left right in front of the new door on Mountain Avenue. DiChiro said they could use the bus loop closer to the Administration Building. Marsh expected that a lot of the drop-off and pick-up would happen on Mountain Avenue in front of the new door. Are the three parking spaces adequate for the drop-off and pick-up? Ogden said they haven't had any input front the Staff. The campus entrance will be retained. JEFF SCHLECT, 489 Friendship Street, Principal of Ashland High School, said he would like the buses to be parked further down the street (north) with pick up and drop off in front of the new mountain Avenue space. Schlect added that even with the combined theater and gym activities, they have not been anywhere near capacity. Typically. only the home football ,,antes would meet capacity. He assured the Commission the)' would not schedule anything on those' clays. KATE KENNEDY, 495 Poplar, teacher at AHS, said she is interested in the font entrance too. She thinks it will be helpful being able to have people enter the building on both sides. . ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11. 2008 $ Questions of Staff - There were no questions. Rebuttal - No comment. Stromberg closed the public hearing and the record. Staff Comment - Molnar said, though the Staff Report can be dry as they try to identify applicable standards, Staff is excited about this project and believes it exemplifies the pride the community has in their academic and civic institutions. He commended the applicant, their team and community for putting forth a design for this building that it long deserved. It meets the community standards for orienting it toward the street as well as the internal parts of the campus, and is a going to be a great asset for many years to come. This is a design that has taken into account the City standards as well as the community process. COMMISSIONERS' DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION It was agreed that Condition 4 and 8E should be removed. Marsh suggested a Condition BE that the applicant shall present a plan for pick-up and drop-off on the Mountain Avenue frontage prior to occupancy. She would like something submitted to Staff before the building is used that says how the pick-up and drop-off will be used and where the buses are going to park. Molnar said it is part of "adequate transportation." Morris has an issue with maintenance of the landscaping. He thinks that Condition 7D would cover it, but wanted to bring it up as a concern. Dawkins agreed. Molnar said there is a standard in the Site Review Chapter that all landscaping be maintained in accordance with the applicant's plan. The Commissioners agreed that a Condition should be added to re-state the landscape maintenance requirement. DottorrerlMorris mis to approve 2008.00053 with the removal of Condition 4 and Condition BE. Add a Condition that the plan for pick-up and drop-off on Mountain Avenue be provided for Staff review and approval prior to occupancy. Add a Condition 7D-4 that landscaping be installed prior to occupancy and maintained in perpetuity. Adoption of Findings DotterrerlMorris mis to approve the findings for PA2008.00053 with the removal of Condition 4 and BE and in the inclusion of the new BE (circulation) and the condition on landscape maintenance. b. PLANNING ACTION: 2008.00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura DESCRIPTION: Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. Ex Parte ContactlBiaslConflict of Interest/Site Visit Marsh, Morris, Dawkins and Stromberg were a part of a site visit with Staff. Morris built a house for the current owners and worked for the Shostrom Brothers three or four years ago. Dawkins has been a friend of a neighboring properly owner, Karen Darling, for 20 years. He runs in the area frequently and has talks with Darling about the development in her area. I le called her to find out if she had signed off on all the items in the packet. Site left a message for Dawkins that she was resigned to the fact that it was going to be developed. Iles comfortable with that and thinks his bias has been remedied. Mindlin had a site visit on her own, and walked the pedestrian trail on the property. Dotterrer and Fields had no site visit or ex parte contact. Appicello asked if Morris and Dawkins are prejudice or if they have pre-judged this application based upon their prior contacts or involvement, and can they make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the law in this application? Man-is said he could and Dawkins agreed There were no challenges of bias or contlict of interest. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11. 2008 82 STAFF REPORT Severson showed an aerial photo of the site containing the six lots. Ile reviewed the application as outlined in the Staff Report. The applicants are proposing to create six lots, five of which would contain homes. They are proposing to move the existing gale at the end of Kitt Road 30 to 40 feet to the south to accommodate a driveway. The applicants are proposing an Exception to Streets Standards to not improve the Hitt Road right-of-way to full City street standards all the way to the south property line. The applicant is also proposing an elevation height limit that the applicant will explain to the Commissioners. Staff had two issues with the application. The application seems fairly straight-forward in terns of the subdivision in that the density of the site is not being exceeded. They are not requesting any kind of density bonus. The lots are generally larger than the minimum size. The applicants, of their own accord, identified Lot 6 on the steepest portion of the property to preserve in open space as commonly owned area to protect it from further development because of the slope. The applicants had proposed some solar envelopes in designing the project. (See pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report.) Some of the solar access envelopes may exceed the requirements for one or potentially two of their lots. Staff did not believe the ordinance gives leeway to do that without requesting a Solar Variance. Severson has included a Condition to state: "That all the lots will be subject to solar access standard "A" unless the applicant either provides evidence that they have a downward trending slope to the north of more than 15 percent (subject to Class "B") or that they request a Variance at the time of Final Plan approval. The houses have been staggered and they have tried to minimize tree removal and driveway slopes. etc. Another item for discussion is the Exception to Street Standards request. The applicants are proposing to remove the existing gate and place it about 30 to 40 feet up the road where they would install a driveway apron. Any necessary improvements up to the driveway would be completed, transitioning the street and sidewalk to the driveway. Beyond the driveway, thg applicants are proposing to have the gate and no further improvements. The gate really restricts the use of the road to strictly vehicle access to the City owned water lower above. There are some fairly steep cm slopes along the road currently. Installation of further street improvements and sidewalk would necessitate significant impacts to that those areas when the applicants are trying to protect them from development with the sixth open space lot. Morris was questioned the slope of Lot 6 (referring to it as a "tract"). Severson explained that outright open space is required on developments of less than ten units. Severson said the applicants could have potentially sought a density bonus to get an additional lot, but chose not to. The applicant has recognized that the steep slopes are a significant natural feature that they would like to see preserved. Molnar said he recalled when Park Estates was developed on upper Morton, there were a few tracts that were unbuddable and they put them in open space. Generally, there are costs associated with fuel management over time and the tracts arc put into common area in order to distribute the costs among home owners. Severson said further development of other lots in the area would be to the south and would be severely limited due to the hillside grades. Marsh asked where the Dimino property is located. Severson said they live directly across from Lot I at the intersection of Strawberry and Hitt Road. PUBLIC HEARING MARK KNOX, 700 MISTLETOE ROAD, Suite 204, introduced his clients, LAURA AND ROBERT MCLENNAN, LAURIE SAGER, Landscape Architect, and the rest of his team, Mark Ambrein, Geotechnical Engineer, and Mark Kamaranth, Civil Engineer. Knox said they started with the following goals: l) To create a subdivision that could be seen as a positive hillside development that meets the intent of the Hillside Ordinance, 2) what mistakes did others make in the neighborhood that they could improve upon, and 3) to create a subdivision that does not impact the existing neighborhood or each other. Stromberg asked if they disagreed with anything Staff brought up. Knox said they are basically on the same page. Knox said the applicants are proposing an average height of homes of about 23 feet or 25 percent less than what is required. They have capped the houses below each house from the houses above. They have tried to tone down the massive rooflines. hopefully make a more horizontal profile. They reduced the density. added some deed restrictions that were not required. They have addressed light and glare, the use of glaring materials and sprinklers. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 83 Knox explained how they have increased the setbacks significantly. The zoning has a 20 foot front yard setback. five foot side yard and ten foot rear yard setback. The setbacks range from 24 to 40 feet in order to retain the views for the neighbors. The Tree Preservation plan shows the building envelopes have been curbed all around the significant trees. Of the 72 trees over six inches in diameter. they will remove 13. 'File ordinance says if you show a tree in an envelope, you are supposed to say you are going to remove it. They are not. however. planning to remove any trees. They have tried to provide enough flexibility within the envelopes that they hope future homeowners/contractors will find ways to work around the trees. The only time trees will be removed. is if a property owner proposes to move a tree because their home is located in the envelope area and then they will have the option to do so. Knox said the caps on the heights are somewhat self-imposed. They needed to know where the driveways would be cut and where they would end up. They wanted to make sure they were not creating an engineering nightmare or an impossible situation where they couldn't meet the requirements. The desire is not to have happen what happened at 360 Strawberry. They have agreed to reduce additional fuels in the area. They have a plan approved by the Fire Dept. Solar Access They are basing everything on the location of the property line. The setback on the side of Lot 2 is showing a 30 foot setback. They plan to move the building envelope ten more feet. using Standard A. and giving the property owner more flexibility, perhaps forcing more earth disturbance. Lot Coverage The applicants are proposing 20 percent lot coverage based upon the entire property including the open space. Some lots may be over and some under. They are asking for the additional coverage to go to other lots. For example, recognizing one of the neighbor's (Darling) needs, the envelope will be pulled way back and the driveway will create more lot coverage. Knox realizes that a neighboring property owner, Mrs. Dimino, has a couple of issues. The gate at the driveway is hugging the edge of the driveway. The applicant is proposing moving the gate an additional 20 to 25 feet up the road to allow for cars to turn around or park and not block the driveway. Marsh asked Knox to respond regarding the Building I envelope. By compensating for Mrs. Darling's property, it pushes the building envelope within ten feet of Hitt Road. Ten feet is a much smaller setback than anyplace else in this area. Knox said the lot is a half acre and is still big enough to accommodate all sorts of designs and shapes of houses. They would not have a problem if the Planning Commission would like to adjust the setback. - Sager said she did a site visit with Jessie Blue. building designer that came up with the conceptual buildings for the site. Building envelope I is a gorgeous place for a ]ionic. It did not feel to her like the home would be sitting on a precipice. PUBLIC COMMENT CATHERINE DIMINO, 423 Strawberry Lane. Mrs. Dimino is using Lou Dintino's five minutes to speak. She submitted written materials that were distributed to the Commissioners. She said tine building envelopes are too restricted. In general, the larger the building is, the more creativity the owners wilt have to build a more interesting design. A smaller envelope will restrict that ability. Dimino believes it is unnecessary to give the various lots larger lot coverage. There is plenty of room to adjust the lines. She said the ordinance states 20 percent lot coverage for the lot, not the project. She mentioned moving the gate. There are always people parking on the common driveway for Strawberry Meadows that won't be able to park there once it is developed. Dimino is primarily concerned with Lot I. 'I he conceptual design pushes the design closer to Iditt Road. She would like to see the envelope along Ilitt be mowed to the West and a reduction in lot coverage. If the envelope is expanded, she doesn't necessarily mean she wants any trees removed. Lou Dimino said the sidewalk should be extended to the new gate location and a small distance beyond because people use this for passage for hiking and it is always difficult to get around the gate. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11. 2008 84 ALEX KNECHT, 181 Birdsong Lane, stated he was a participant in the development of Strawberry Meadows. He does not oppose the development. He said a trail skirts the applicant's property and it is well used. He suggested a trail front a part of (lie property up to Hitt Road (approximately 50 feet) for those that don't want to hike up a very steep trail. Since developing his property, Knecht believes the applicant is smart in trying to establish the 20 percent lot coverage from the beginning. Questions of Staff Dotterrer asked what the ordinance says regarding the 20 percent lot coverage for the entire property. Molnar read a portion of the definition of Lot Coverage. In practice, it has been an option for a development early on to look at the coverage of an entire site. Quail Haven is an example that calculated lot coverage based on the entire parcel. Molnar said it is important to look at the Purpose of the Performance Standards. There could be a situation where clustering of homes might be fine. or it might be less appropriate based on the development pattern in the neighborhood. Severson asked the applicant has given a square footage allocation to each lot showing total coverage of the subdivision is 20 percent at Final Plan submittal. Daucrrer asked what the argument is against making the building envelopes as large as possible. Molnar said in hillside areas where there is a concern for reducing the impact on trees, steep slopes, increasing driveway cuts, etc., it is more desirable to have a smaller building envelope. With regard to Lot I, the main issue would be protecting trees in the area. It seems the applicant has worked with an adjoining neighbor to try to move the envelope. Molnar said the establishment of the building envelope generally falls under review of the natural features of the site. Has the applicant adequately preserved those? One way is by fine tuning of the placement of the envelopes. In this case, it seems there is some flexibility with moving the envelope on Lot I and a finding can still be made. Severson said the height elevation limit of Lot 5, is misstated on the February 19i1' submittal. Ile believes the finished floor level is 2,449 feet, not 2.443 feet. lie would like the applicant to comment Dawkins/Fields m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. Molnar said if the Commission believes it is an issue, they might want to find out how the applicant is planning to accommodate guest parking. Stromberg noted the public hearing is still open and it might be advisable to give people an opportunity respond to this potentially new information. Fields asked if the access to Lot l committed to how it is shown on the subdivision plan. Severson said lie believes the slopes are upwards of 35 percent for the road cut. It would be a bigger disturbance than following the contours and would have to be 35 feet from the intersection. Marsh wondered if there is anyplace for hikers to park. Molnar thought Hitt Road is 20 feet wide. If it becomes problematic and a concern of the Fire Department and people are parking on a 20 foot wide street, there could be a request for No Parking signs. Molnar said the remainder of the street past the gate has to be installed to City street standard that might allow some space for on-sweet parking. Fie is not certain if that deals with the issue. It's fair to look at a better option. If the majority of the Commission believes guest parking has not been addressed to their satisfaction to approve the Exception, they can ask for additional information. There might be allowances for guest parking on the individual lots. Dottener asked under what criteria is the applicant required to provide parking for hikers? Molnar had been speaking about guest parking. Additional homes off Hitt Road will draw more people possibly creating a situation where people will park on Hitt. They are requesting an Exception. The cun-ent Street Standards allow the Commission to require street improvements that allow for on-street parking that would speak to that concern. Stromberg asked if there was anyone that participated in the hearing that would like to rebut any of the facts that were disclosed in the discussion. KNECHT clarified that his development did not have the lot coverage for the entire parcel in place. They had to implement it after the fact because of the constraint the lot and 20 percent coverage. Parking at the top of Hitt is going to be a problem. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11. 2008 85 APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Knox said the lot envelopes are large enough to accommodate guest parking in the individual driveways. Bird Song Lane provides an opportunity to park and walk. Lot l is extremely steep. The first design they did was unworkable. Knox responded to Dimino's concerns. The building envelope for Lot I is more than adequate. The width of the envelope (cast/west) is 50 feet and north to south is 110 feet. At the narrowest point closest to Mrs. Darling's house, is about 30 feet. He said the applicants are requesting only what has been allowed by adjacent subdivisions. Dawkins/Dotterrer m/s to extend the meeting to 10.30 p.m. Roll Calla The motion carried with Dawkins, Morris, Marsh, Mindlin. Dotterrer and Stromberg voting "yes' and Fields voting "no. Stromberg asked if anyone wished to request either the public hearing or record be kept open for seven days. The public hearing is continued to a date certain. Dimino asked the public hearing be left open for seven days. Stromberg said the Planning Commission has the option of keeping the public hearing or record open for seven days. Knox asked the applicant be given seven days to respond if there additional written arguments submitted. Fields/Morris mis to close the public hearing and keep the written record open for seven days. Voice Vote: The motion carried with Morris, Marsh, Mindlin, Dotterrer, Stromberg and Fields voting "yes" and Dawkins voting "no." The public record will be kept open until March 19, 2008 until 5:00 p.m. The applicant will have until March 261h, 2008, 5:00 p.m. to file•a written argument - argument, not evidence. DotterrerlMindlin cols to continue deliberations to the April 8, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting to be held at 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11. 2008 86 I = , Planning Department, 51 + A I Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y OF 541.488-5305 Fax: 541-552-[050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900• ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2008.00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert& Laura DESCRIPTION: Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential; ZONING: RR-.5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 08 AC; TAX LOT: 201 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on March 6, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Sisldyou Room) located at 51 Winbum Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MEETING: March 11, 2008; 1:30 PM rv ~ WBJfiCT PROPERLY j I PJW W.OO, BI 60D STRAWBERRY as , EoeAC :o, t i. SEER W 6Rf' Lf2rw~ r n f r n "L Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland. Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection conceming this application. either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the Issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for Inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department. Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrators office at 541488-6002 (TTY phone number 1.800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free td8antact the Ashland Planning Department, 541488-5305. OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL, 18.88.030.A Criteria for Approval 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 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 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 amenifies 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. (Ord 2836, S21999) PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.62.040.1 1. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/0412002) EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.88.050 F - Exception to Street Standards An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.86.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the rile or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D.The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. (Ord 2836, Amended, 0210211999) 88 G mmmdn laming%N*ixc Maiu,d!00$1W8.001 S2.dnc PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 103 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 107 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 202 ASHLAND CITY OF BARNES KENNETH J/SUZANNE H DARLING KAREN 340 PIONEER ST 523 STRAWBERRY LN 490 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 110 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 506 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 109 DIMINO LUCIEN A/CATHERINE DIXON RODNEY SCOTT TRUSTEE ET AL DONOVAN MICHAEL J/MARIE B 423 STRAWBERRY LN 838 BLACKBERRY LN 320 HEMLOCK LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 111 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 206 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 400 HWOSCHINSKY PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL KNECHT GERALD R TRUSTEE ET AL KUTCHER WILLIAM S/DEBRA A 443 STRAWBERRY LN 114 CALUMET AVE 400 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN ANSELMO CA 94960 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 106 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 209 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 201 LAYSER GAIA/BORGIAS DARREN LOVETT RICHARD PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL MC LELLAN R/LAURA A WRIGHT- 500 PHELPS ST PO BOX 427 500 STRAWBERRY LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 508 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 503 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 203 MCDANIEL JOHN SCOTT OLSON MARGARET J BROWN TRUSTEE SHOLEM CONSTANCE W TRUSTEE ET PO BOX 924 ET AL AL ASHLAND OR 97520 1018 NE D ST 121 BIRDSONG LN WASHINGTON DC 20002 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 205 PA-2008-00182 391 E08AC 300 PA-2008-00182 391 E08DB 200 STEIN GERALD W TRUSTEE ET AL STROM HOWARD E TRUSTEE ET AL TRY-W GROUP LIMITED PARTNER 806 CYPRESS POINT LP 3411 LA FALDA PL 100 S E CRYSTAL LAKE DR ASHLAND OR 97520 LOS ANGELES CA 90068 CORVALLIS OR 97333 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 505 PA-2008-00182 391E08AC 504 WAY ANTHONY E TRUSTEE ET AL WILSON JAY/SUZANNE 400 SHERIDAN ST 71 HOLLINS DR ASHLAND OR 97520 SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 89 ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATII .5 (Nick) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission, March 11, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at;500 Strawtieiry Lane: frhe application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Perrn'it'Wr O'eVelopment-of'Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. Request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 19,375 square foot auxiliary gym and music suite addition on the Ashland High School campus located at 201 South Mountain Avenue. The application proposes demolition of the existing 10,800 square foot auxiliary gym building and of the 5,600 square foot music suite; renovation of the 22,024 square foot main gym building; and a reconfiguration of the parking area located to the east of the existing gym building. The net increase in building area is 2,975 square feet. The application also includes a request for a Variance to the required sideyard setback along South Mountain Avenue; the applicants propose to construct a ramp, stairs and landings to the property line where a minimum ten-foot sideyard setback Is required. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Community Development Director Bill Molnar Publish: 3/01/2008 Date e-mailed: 2/21/2008 Purchase Order: 81055 90 I Planning Commission Speaker Request Form i 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone; 3) State your name and address tor. the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. ,5) If you present written materials,:please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. - 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. -7) Speakers at solely responsible'for the content of their public statement. x (please print Address (iio P O. Boa). ' 1! 3 h J a Ca0 lY V u' = Phone`.; 8 2 5~ ZZ ..Email _ ` C cY t yv~ I tt d I _L°.abt2 ~q- F Y t l o'S w f ghts Meedn' Date 3 Told ti Regular Meeting f ;-Agenda itemmumber: OR Topic forpublic forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing - For `Against. Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias { If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner).-with a conflict of interest or.bias, please write your allegation complete with.suppoiting facts on this form and deliver ttto the clerk.immediately. The. Chairwill address the written challengewith the member. ;Please"be ectful of the ` resp " ptoceeding;and do -not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge.when you testify during the normal: order of proceedings. ` LL v Written Comments/Challenge: _ The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that,the public be permined to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time - constraints limit public testimony., No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in everyphase, of a proceeding. Please respect the order ofproceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directionsof the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. II Comments and statements by speakers do notrepresentthe opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. r' ~ I Planning Commission Speaker Request Form. 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to j speak about. _ . ` 2), Speak to the Planning Commission- from the table podium microphone 3) State your name and address foi the record.,. ' 4)_ Limit your comments to the amount of time given.to you by the.Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record 6) You may give written comment's to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak ~ ' 7):Speskeraare solely responsible for the content of th'eirpublic statement. 77 7 0 t Af~~ me l Vh 1.D.. (please p rant Jzj~ [_A dress (no P O Bned _ 2-Z ~Emaii = a ; _ ~ . a_ ~ 4 TonIght's Meeting Date J 1 I D a t ` ; Regular Meeting _ t `Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) J.. 4 a Land Use Public Hearingr For Against Challenge for 6in1lict- of Intemst or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or, bias; please write yow allegation`complete with,supporting facts:on this formand'deliveri tto the clerk immediately: The = Chair will address the written challenge witli the member.; Please be:respecdbl-of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may-also provide testimony about tiie challenge'when.yon testifyduring the normal :order of proceedings. Written' Comments/Challenge: k.. The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak The Ashland Planning, Commission generally - invites the public to speak an agenda items and during publieforurn-ors non-agenda items unless time constraints, limit public testimony. Na person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the:order ofproceedings for public hearings and strictly follow-the directions of the presiding o fcer, ' Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct., Offenders will be requested to leave the room.. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, 3 I City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 92 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. j 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials;. please give a copy to the.Secretary for the record: - ; 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name (please print) 3 r } L _ Address-.(no P.O. Box) _7_t. \c`~ 1 ` C Jn~1 r P - Phoneq ~73~J Lf(e V Email -Cl hP Ur Tonight s Meeting Date" Regular Meeting Agenda item cumber OR Topic for public forum (non agenda' item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If-you are challenging a.ifiern er (planning commissioner) with a conflict of inierestor, bias-, please.write ;.'your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it,to the clerk immediately. The ' Chair will address the wtitten challenge witty the m6mber. Please be-respectful' of the proceeding and'do not interitipt. You may also provide testimony.about"the challenge when you.testify during the nonnal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge:- The Public Meeting, Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not alwauvs require that the public be permitted to speak.' The Ashland Planning Cgmmi'ssion generally invites the public to speak on agenda itenns• and during public.jorum on non-agenda items unless time constraints lintit public iestimonv. 'No person has an absolute right, to speak or participole in every phase oja proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictlvfollow the directions of the presiding oBicer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespeeffid,` and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requester) to leave the room. i r Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. • i 93 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT March 11, 2008 PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura LOCATION: 500 Strawberry Lane 39 1 E 08 AC Tax Lot #201 ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-.5-P COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: March 3, 2008 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: July 1, 2008 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.16 R-R Rural Residential District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints 18.88 Performance Standards Options REQUEST: Planning Action #2008-00 1 82 is a request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application There are no other planning actions of record for this site since its creation by land partition in 2004. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site The subject property is located at 500 Strawberry Lane, on the southwest corner of the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road. The project site comprises a single Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Repod.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 1 of 17 94 irregularly shaped tax lot which covers an area of approximately 4.62 acres, and which has approximately 170 feet of frontage along Strawberry Lane and 935 feet of frontage on Hitt Road. The subject parcel and surrounding properties to the north, east and west are located in the R- R-.5-P Rural Residential zoning district, which is intended to stabilize and protect the rural residential characteristics of areas which because of their topography, level of services, or other natural or development factors are better suited to larger lots. The area to the south is zoned W-R Woodland Residential, a zone applied to ensure that the forest, environmental erosion control, and scenic values of the area are protected. The entire subject property is also located within the Wildfire Lands overlay. The subject property has an average slope of approximately 18 percent down to the north, toward Strawberry Lane, but includes a range of slopes from zero to 40 percent. The steeper portions of the site are along the roadside at the north and east of the site and at the south end, with heavily wooded areas on the southern portion of the property having slopes in excess of 35 percent. The northern two-thirds of the site has slopes which are generally less than 25 percent. An existing house, constructed by the applicants in 2002, sits near the center of the property, and is accessed via a driveway from Strawberry Lane. The primary natural features of the site are the existing trees, which include a mix of scrub oak, pine, manzanita and madrone, and the sloped areas on the southern third of the site, which include lands considered to have "severe constraints" to development under the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter AMC 18.62 because they have slopes in excess of 35 percent. The application includes a report on the suitability of the site for development from a geo-technical expert and a tree inventory prepared by a certified arborist which identifies 72 trees on the site which are of size six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger. The application also indicates that there are numerous other smaller trees on the site. Outline Plan Proposal The applicants are requesting Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88. Of the proposed six lots, one would contain the existing residence, four would accommodate future homes, and one at the most steeply-sloped south end of the site would be reserved as common open space. The application materials indicate that the subdivision was planned to limit cuts and fills, minimize hillside erosion, and limit the mass of the homes constructed on the site. Lot 1 is proposed at %:-acre and is to be located at the northeast comer of the site. It is to take access via a private driveway from Strawberry Lane. Lot 2, also proposed at 1/2-acre, is to be located south of Lot 1, and is proposed to take access from a private driveway off of Hitt Road. Lot 3, comprising approximately 0.68 acres is to be located at the northwestern portion of the subject property and will take access from the existing driveway off of Strawberry Lane. Lot 4 is proposed at 1.42 acres, and is to contain the existing residence; the existing driveway connection to Strawberry Lane is to be terminated, and a new driveway off of Hitt Road is proposed. Lot 5 will be located to the south of Lot 4, and is proposed at one- acre with access from a new driveway off of Hitt Road. The existing gate at the south end of Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 2 of 17 95 Hitt Road is to be relocated approximately 40 feet to the south to accommodate this new driveway. Lot 6 is proposed at 0.54 acres and is to be preserved as common open space for the benefit of subdivision residents and to protect the more steeply sloped areas of the subject property from the impacts of development. The application not only identifies building envelopes for each of the proposed lots on lands with slopes of less than 35 percent, as required by ordinance, but also provides some conceptual indications of the proposed future building footprints within the proposed envelopes. The materials provided explain that the applicants have made efforts to accommodate the wishes of the neighbor at 490 Strawberry Lane byplacing the envelope on Lot 1 in a way that preserves the existing view, and propose to limit the height of future buildings within the proposed subdivision so as to preserve their views while limiting their visual impact on the hillside. Existing and proposed public facilities are illustrated in the provided "Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan" (Applicants' C.1) and "Conceptual Utility Plan" (Applicants' C.2). These plans identify existing water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electrical services within the Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road rights-of-way, as well as existing and proposed fire hydrants, and identify proposed service extensions/connections to the proposed individual lots, including private stormwater detention facilities proposed within the driveways of each individual lot. Exception to Street Standards Proposal The existing street improvements on Hitt Road include pavement, curbs, and gutters, and curbside sidewalks only on the west side of the road. There is an existing gate and fire apparatus turn-around at the end of the improvements, and access is limited primarily to city vehicles going to the city water tank located on the parcel south of the subject property. The two properties immediately south of the subject property are within the city limits in the WR Woodland Residential zoning district. One of these properties is city-owned and contains the city water tank, and the other is privately owned. Future development of either property would be largely constrained by slope issues, as both are made up almost entirely of hillside lands with severe constraints due to the presence of slopes in excess of 35 percent. Given the limited growth potential for the properties to the south, the limited number of vehicles going beyond the gate, and the fact that the applicants have already provided an easement for a public trail connection over the southern portion of the subject property, the applicants have requested an Exception to Street Standards in order to not extend street improvements or sidewalks beyond the proposed driveway for Lot 5, instead simply relocating the existing gate approximately 40 feet to the south. Tree Removal Proposal The application materials provided include a tree inventory, tree removal plan and tree protection plan which indicate that there are 72 trees on the site greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), and that there are numerous other trees on the site smaller than six-inches. The application describes the site's existing trees as predominately densely- intermixed scrub oaks, manzanitas and madrones. Other tree species identified include black walnut, silver maple, apple, and curl-leaf mountain mahogany. Planning Action 2007.01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 3 of 17 96 13 trees over six-inches d.b.h. are identified for removal due to their locations within building envelopes. The application materials note that the applicants do not intend to immediately remove these trees, that future removals will depend on final home design decisions made by individual lot owners, and that it is highly likely that a number of the trees identified for removal here due to their location within the envelopes will be retained. All trees located outside of the building envelopes are identified for preservation. The application also requests that no requirements for on-site mitigation be imposed due to both the nature of the property and the number of trees already in place, and indicates that the applicants recognize that this may necessitate a requirement for off-site mitigation plantings or payment in lieu of mitigation plantings. Physical Constraints Review Proposal The subject property is located on Hillside Lands and contains slopes in excess of 25 percent. Applications for the development of Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions are subject to Physical Constraints Review permits, and are required to provide a geotechnical study indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The applicants have provided the required plans and written findings for a Physical Constraints Review permit, along with the necessary geotechnical studyindicating that the proposed development is feasible given site conditions observed by a geotechnical expert. If. Protect Impact The project requires a subdivision approval since it involves the creation of residential lots. In accordance with Chapter 18.108, applications for Outline Plan approval are required to be reviewed under the "Type 11" process with a public hearing. A. Outline Plan for Performance Standards Options Subdivision In Staffs review of the proposal, the application appears to meet the approval criteria for Outline Plan approval. Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, allows a flexible lot layout and design approach in an effort to preserve natural features as well as encourage creative and energy efficient site and building design. To this end, the base density of the project is for the total project site area. While perimeter and front yard setbacks must conform to the requirements of the underlying zoning district, the Chapter provides for flexibility with regard to lot sizes, widths, depths and interior site setbacks. The first Outline Plan approval criterion requires that "That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland." In reviewing the application, Staff identified some concerns over the proposed treatment of solar access in the proposal. Solar Access In its most basic form, the city's Solar Access Ordinance is intended to insure that an adjacent building to the south shades an adjoining property to the north no more than the amount of shadowing which would be cast by a six-foot solid fence installed along the mutual property line. All new residential lots with a downward trending slope of less than 15 percent are required to comply with this provision, and new lots having a downward trending Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 4 of 17 97 slope of 15 percent or greater are eligible for a greater shadow allowance (i.e. no more shadow than would be cast by a 16-foot fence on the mutual property line), due to the fact that shadow length increases as the percent in downward slope increases. These differences are determined through appropriate lot classifications, with Standard "A" being the six-foot fence rule and Standard "B" offering the additional relief of a 16-foot fence due to the increase in downward slope. Lots created through subdivision or partition must demonstrate that a 21-foot high structure can be placed on the lot with a setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north- south lot dimension based on the appropriate Solar Access Standard. If applicants choose not to design a lot so that it meets this requirement, a written description of a "Solar Envelope" must be provided defining the height requirements which will protect the applicable Solar Access Standard. While'the applicants indicate that the individual lots proposed will accommodate a 21-foot tall structure so that the required solar setback will not exceed one-half of the north-south dimension of the lot, as required in Section 18.70.050 of the Solar Access Ordinance, they also suggest that they have at their option designed lots with building envelopes situated toward the northern portion of the lots to work with the elevation height limits proposed to protect the views of future residents. As such, they have proposed to provide solar envelopes which extend beyond the northern property lines but not onto the heated space of the individual lots to the north. The Solar Access Performance Standard provision of the Solar Access Ordinance, as explained in 18.70.050.13, states, "If the applicant chooses not to design a lot so that it meets the standards set forth in (A) above, a Solar Envelope shall be used to define the height requirements which will protect the applicable SolarAccess Standard. The Solar Envelope, and written description of its effects, shall be filed with the land partition or subdivision plat for the lot(s)." This provision requires that the Solar Envelope provided be designed to protect the applicable Solar Access Standard; this is further reinforced in the Performance Standards Options requirement that solar access setbacks be provided. Based on the written Solar Envelope description provided with the application, it appears that the applicants propose to comply with required solar access setbacks for Lots 1, 3 and 4 and that only Lots 2 and 5 may cast shadows greater than allowed under the applicable solar access standards, however the envelope descriptions are not entirely clear and provide narrative description of shadows in relation to living space on the adjacent lots rather than calculations and details of the height limitations on the lots themselves. Staff believe the Land Use Ordinance is clear that Solar Envelopes must be designed to protect applicable Solar Access Standards, and that it is not the applicants' option to do otherwise unless a Solar Access Variance is obtained. Conditions have been suggested below to clari fy that newly created lots will be subject to Solar Access Standard A unless evidence of a negative north slope exceeding fifteen percent is provided or a Variance obtained concurrently with the Final Plan approval, and to require that compliance with Solar Access standards be provided with the building permits. Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 5 of 17 98 City Facilities The second criterion is "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." Existing and proposed public facilities are illustrated in the provided "Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan" (Applicants' C.1) and "Conceptual Utility Plan" (Applicants' C.2). These plans identify existing water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electrical facilities within the Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road rights-of-way, as well as existing and proposed fire hydrants, and identify proposed service extensions/connections to the proposed individual lots, including private stormwater detention facilities proposed within the driveways of each individual lot. The application notes that all new private service connections have been designed to extend at right angles within the proposed driveways to minimize overall site disturbance. In terms of fire protection, the applicants have provided a proposed fire prevention and control plan and a list of proposed deed restrictions which would require, among other things, that each home contain a residential fire sprinkler system, and that property owners maintain property in accordance with the approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan. Overall, Staff believes that the application demonstrates that public services are in place or can be extended to service the project. Natural Features The third approval criterion states "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." The application includes a tree inventory which identifies 72 trees on the site greater than six-inches d.b.h., and 59 of these trees are proposed to be preserved. Only those trees located within proposed building envelopes are identified for removal, and the building envelopes and driveways have been located to minimize cuts and fills. The application also notes that the removal of all 13 trees is unlikely and will depend on final designs of the four proposed new homes. In addition to the site's trees, the applicants have identified the steeper heavily-wooded slopes at the southern end of the subject property as an existing natural feature of the land, and propose to preserve the most steeply sloped, tree-covered area at the south end of the site as a commonly owned, unbuildable open space. Development of Adjacent Land The fourth criterion to be considered in evaluating an Outline Plan application is "That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan." The bulk of the adjacent lands have been developed in recent years, primarily through phases of the adjacent Strawberry Meadows subdivision which is located to the north, east and west of the subject property. In Staff's opinion, the primary adjacent area that would be considered for further development would be to the south of the subject property, where there are two undeveloped lots within the city limits. One of these lots is a 5.02 acre parcel owned by the city and containing a city water tank, and the other is a 27.25 acre privately-owned parcel. Both of these parcels are zoned WR Woodland Residential, with a base density of 0.30 dwelling units per acre, however both are made up largely of severe constraints lands with slopes in excess of 35 percent which would limit their future development potential considerably. In any case, the applicants' present proposal would not prevent their future development. Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 6 of 17 99 Provisions Open Space The fifth approval criterion is, "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." The application proposes to retain the more steeply sloped southern portions of the site as an unbuildable, commonly-owned open space identified on the plan submittals as Lot 6. The submittal materials also indicate that the subdivision's CC&R's will provide a management structure to provide for the necessary maintenance of this open space. A condition of approval has been added to require that a copy of the proposed CC&R's be provided for review with the Final Plan submittal to ensure that the common area is maintained in perpetuity. Density The sixth criterion is "That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter." The RR-.5-P Rural Residential Zoning District has a base density of 1.2 dwelling units per acres, giving the 4.62 acre subject property a base density of 5.544 dwelling units. The application proposes the creation of five developable lots, including one proposed to contain the existing home, meeting the base density standards. No density bonus has been requested by the applicants. Street Standards The final approval criterion is that "The development complies with the Street Standards." The proposed subdivision will take access from existing, improved public streets and no new streets are proposed. However, the applicants have requested an Exception to Street Standards, discussed below, rather than extending the Hitt Road street and sidewalk improvements beyond the driveway for Lot 5 with the application. B. Exception to Street Standards Existing street improvements on Hitt Road include pavement, curbs, and gutters, and curbside sidewalks only on the west side of the road. There is an existing gate and fire apparatus turn-around at the end of the improvements, and access is limited primarily to city vehicles going to the water tank located south of the subject property. Of the two parcels located within the city limits to the south, one is city-owned and contains the city water tank, and the other is privately owned. Future development of either property would be constrained by slope issues, as both are made up largely of hillside lands with severe constraints due to the presence of slopes in excess of 35 percent. Given the limited growth potential for the properties to the south, the limited number of vehicles going beyond the gate, and the fact that the applicants have already provided an easement for a public trail connection over the southern portion of the subject property, the applicants have requested an Exception to Street Standards in order not to extend street improvements or sidewalks beyond the proposed driveway for Lot 5, and would instead simply relocate the existing gate approximately 40 feet to the south to accommodate the new driveway. The first approval criterion for an Exception to Street Standards is that there is demonstrable difficulty meeting the standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. The applicants assert that the unique and unusual aspects of the property are in its Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department-Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 7 0117 100 location very near the city limits and urban growth boundary in a woodland area with extremely steep slopes that limit future growth and a limited amount of vehicle traffic which is restricted by an existing gate. The proposed use of the site is also somewhat unique if only in that the applicants propose to preserve the southern-most lot as unbuildable as they deem the'steeply sloped areas here to be a significant natural feature worthy of protection, and the extension of street improvements completely through the proposed development to the south property line would result in considerable additional disturbance to the very lands which the applicants are seeking to protect here. The second approval criterion is that the Exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity. The application materials note that the applicants have previously provided an easement for public pedestrian access and constructed trail improvements on the southern portion of the subject property in conjunction with the applicants work on the Ashland Woodlands and Trail Association. This trail provides pedestrian connectivity from Hitt Road west to Birdsong Lane, a recently constructed street in the adjacent Strawberry Meadows subdivision. The applicants contend that this provides superior transportation facilities as the existing gate limits traffic primarily to walkers and mountain bikers, and the trail provides for connectivity more suited to the natural environment, without the additional associated disturbance of a sidewalk. The third criterion is that the Exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The application notes that the subdivision design proceeded on the intent to build to the base density, rather than seeking density bonuses for an additional lot, and placed the southern- most driveway and building envelope close to the existing gate in order to utilize the existing street improvements and minimize further disturbance of the more steeply sloped southern portion of the subject property. The final criterion is that the Exception is consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter which is to allow for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. In exchange for this flexibility, the chapter calls for energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, and use of the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage. The chapter also seeks to provide for a quality of life equal or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, to be aesthetically pleasing, to provide for more efficient land use, and to reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. As partof the application, the steeply sloped and heavily wooded southern portion of the subject property was identified by the applicants as worthy of protection from development and they propose to protect it as commonly owned, unbuildable open space in keeping with the requirements of the Chapter. In addition, the applicants have proposed a number of measures to reduce impacts to the neighborhood and to the natural environment, including height restrictions, deed restrictions similar to those imposed on the adjacent properties requiring fire sprinklers and a fire prevention and control plan, and increased setbacks and adjusted building envelopes. The application materials note that widening the street further beyond the gate to address the Street Standards would necessitate increasing retaining wall heights and performing additional grading which could result in additional tree removal and detrimental impacts on the very sloped areas which the applicants are trying to protect with the protection of the open space (Lot 6). Planning Action 200701398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 8 of 17 101 Staff believes that the proposal has sufficiently addressed the approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards, however Staff has recommended a condition to require that the applicants sign in favor of and agree to participate in the future improvement of Hitt Road to city street standards should it eventually prove necessary. C. Tree Removal Permit The application describes the site's existing trees as predominately densely-intermixed scrub oaks, manzanitas and madrones. Other tree species identified include black walnut, silver maple, apple, and curl-leaf mountain mahogany. The trees over six-inches d.b.h. which are proposed for removal include: 11 oaks ranging in size from six- to 18-inches d.b.h., one eight-inch d.b.h. apple, and one six-inch d.b.h. curl-leaf mountain mahogany. With the exception of five trees to be removed within the envelope of Lot 5, which will be subject to a separate hillside development permit prior to tree removal or construction, none of the tree removals are proposed to disturb areas with slopes greater than 25 percent. The application materials also note that the applicants do not intend to immediately remove these trees, that future removals will depend on final home design decisions made by individual lot owners, and that it is highly likely that a number of the 13 trees identified for removal here due to their location within the envelopes will ultimately be retained. The application notes that all trees located outside of the building envelopes are identified for preservation. While the application identifies those trees greater than six-inches d.b.h. proposed for removal as required by ordinance, and they are considered as part of the request in terms of the summative effect of their removals on the preservation of the site's natural features and the associated hillside disturbance, only Tree #31, an 18-inch d.b.h. oak to be removed from the building envelope of Lot 3, is considered to be a significant tree and subject to a Tree Removal Permit according to the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (AMC Chapter 18.61). The removal of a non-hazard tree requires a demonstration that: 1) the proposed removal is in order to order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards; 2) that the tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3) that the 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. In addition, the criteria require that applicants, as a condition of approval, must be required to mitigate proposed tree removals pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. The tree removals proposed are located only within identified building envelopes which have been designed to comply with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, the Hillside Ordinance, and the Performance Standards Options chapter, and the removal of Tree #31 is due to its location within an envelope which has been placed to relate to an existing drive in order to minimize the need for additional site disturbance. With the exception of the trees to be removed on Lot 5, the other removals are not in steeply sloped areas and the application has provided erosion control and drainage plans. 11 of the 13 trees to be removed are oaks, and the majority of the 59 trees over six-inches in diameter to be preserved on site are also Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 9 of 17 102 oaks so the proposed removals appear to have little impact on canopy or species diversity. The application requests that no requirements for on-site mitigation be imposed due to the nature of the property, the number of trees already in place, and the location within the Wildfire overlay. The application recognizes that this may necessitate a requirement for off- site mitigation planting or payment in lieu of mitigation planting. As such, a condition has been recommended below to require that the applicants mitigate the removal of Tree #31 pursuant to the requirements of AMC 18.61.084 through an off-site mitigation planting or payment in lieu of planting. The Tree Commission has not reviewed either proposal at the time of this writing. Tree Commission comments will be provided at the public hearing and a condition has been recommended below to require that their recommendations, where consistent with standards, be incorporated into the final plan submittal. D. Physical Constraints Review Permit The subject property is located on Hillside Lands and contains slopes in excess of 25 percent. Applications for the development of Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions are subject to Physical Constraints Review permits, and are required to provide a geotechnical study indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. Physical Constraints Review Permits are subject to the following criteria: 1) through the application of the hillside development standards, potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered and adverse impacts minimized; 2) that the applicants have considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented mitigation measures; and 3) that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. The applicants have provided the required plans, written findings, and a geotechnical study which concludes that the proposed subdivision and associated site grading are considered to be feasible with respect to the stability of the subsurface and slope conditions observed on site. This report includes recommendations for necessary site preparation, retaining, and erosion control, and proposes an inspection schedule to insure that these recommendations are properly implemented during site work. The application also notes that only the proposed Lot 5 includes slopes in excess of 25 percent within the proposed building envelope, and recognizes that as such this lot would be subject to a separate individual application for a Physical Constraints Review permit at the time of development. A condition to this effect has been recommended below. Ill. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in 18.88.030.A as follows: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 10 of 17 103 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 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 unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed forthe 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. I. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040.1 as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal are described in 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 11 of 17 104 hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning, 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may requirelhe building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in 18.88.050.F as follows: Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Repon.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 12 of 17 105 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations In Staffs opinion, the application is a relatively straightforward one that is proposed in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options chapter. Staff believes that the application is consistent with the approval criteria for a six-lot, five-unit Performance Standards subdivision; Exception to Street Standards; Physical Constraints Review permit; and removal of 13 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) including one significant tree, an 18-inch d.b.h. oak. We would accordingly recommend approval of the application with the following conditions attached: I) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) All conditions of the geotechnical report prepared by Amrhein Associates, Inc. and dated October 12, 2007, including but not limited to the inspection schedule, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 3) That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A unless 1) materials are provided with the Final Plan submittal demonstrating that an individual lot has a negative north slope in excess of 15 percent which would render it subject to Solar Access Standard B; or 2) a Solar Access Variance is applied for and approved for the individual lots concurrently with Final Plan approval. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade. 4) That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.62.089.B.7. 5) That prior to Final Plan approval: a) Engineering for the utility plan including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage and electric facilities shall be submitted. 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, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. b) An Electric Distribution Plan shall be coordinated with the Ashland Electric Department, and shall be included in the utility plan with the Final Plan submittal. C) A drainage plan including necessary final engineering for the private lot stormwater detention systems and any off-site storm drain system improvements shall be provided. Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 13 of 17 106 d) The engineering for sidewalk improvements to complete sidewalk installation along the subject property's full Strawberry Lane frontage shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. e) The recommendations from the March 6, 2008 meeting of the Ashland Tree Commission, where consistent with applicable standards, shall be incorporated into the Final Plan submittal's Landscaping, Irrigation, and Tree Protection and Removal Plans. f) A draft copy of the CC&R's and the applicants' proposed Deed Restrictions shall be provided. The CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all commonly-owned open space including but not limited to the implementation and maintenance of the approved fire prevention and control plan, and perpetual maintenance of required long term erosion control measures. The CC&R's shall note that any deviation from the approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. The CC&R's and Deed Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. g) The overall lot coverage for the subdivision as a whole shall be limited to no more than 20 percent. At the time of final plan submittal, the applicants shall provide a breakdown, by square footage, of the allowed lot coverage allocated to each lot and demonstrating that the overall subdivision's lot coverage does not exceed the 20 percent allowed in the RR-.5 zoning district. h) That written verification from the project geotechnical expert shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal indicating that the revised six-lot subdivision configuration and associated improvements are consistent with the original report. i) That a landscape and irrigation plan addressing the re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes required in the geotechnical report shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. 6) That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit: a) A preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be held prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Department, Ashland Building Department, the project engineer, project geotechnical experts, landscape professional, arborist, and contractor. The applicants or applicants' representative shall contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. b) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to i Planning Action 200741398 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 14 of 17 107 the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.13. C) That the temporary erosion control measures (i.e. fabric sediment fencing, straw bales, crushed rock pads, straw erosion control matting or plastic sheeting) shall be installed and maintained according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, or issuance of an excavation permit. These measures shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. d) The applicants shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit or other financial guarantee in an amount equal to 120 percent of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. 7) That prior to the signature of the final survey plat: a) All easements for sewer, water, drainage, electric, streets or public pedestrian access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. b) Street trees, located one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the Strawberry Lane street frontage as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. Street trees shall be chosen from the Recommended Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Recommended Street Tree List. The street trees shall be irrigated. C) Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities; driveways, driveway approaches and associated erosion control measures; any necessary street or sidewalk improvements on Hitt Road between the end of the existing improvements and the driveway for Lot 5; and sidewalks and street trees on Strawberry Lane shall be installed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat. d) That the installation of driveway approaches shall be completed according to city standards under permit from the Public Works/Engineering Department and any necessary inspections approved. C) The existing sidewalk on Hitt Road shall be extended to the northerly edge of the Lot 5 driveway's approach. f) Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 1-5. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. g) That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots I-5. Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Stall Report,dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 15 of 17 108 h) That Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report dated October 12, 2007 provided with the application. Prior to signature of the final survey plat, Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. i) The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. j) The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of street improvements for Hitt Road, including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains. k) That the applicants shall complete the relocation of the gate at the end of the improvements on Hitt Road to the southern extent of the street improvements. The relocation of the gate will be coordinated with the City of Ashland Water Department. 8) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the lot coverage allocated to each lot. Building footprints, walkways, driveways including the flag drive for Lot 3, parking areas, and any impervious surfaces shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. b) The setback requirements of 18.88.070 shall be met and identified on the building permit submittals including but not limited to the required width between buildings as described in 18.88.070.D. C) Building permit submittals shall clearly demonstrate compliance with the applicants' proposed "Elevation Height Limits" byproviding cross- sections or elevation drawings with building heights and elevations above sea level clearly labeled. d) That a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for Hillside Development shall be applied for and approved in accordance with 18.62.040 for the development of Lot 5 prior to submission or issuance of a building permit. 9) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the requirements of the Fire Department, including that approved addressing shall be installed prior to combustible construction; that a fire prevention and control plan shall be implemented and maintained; and that fire apparatus access, fire sprinklers as proposed by the Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 16 of 17 109 applicants, and a fire hydrant shall be installed, shall be addressed. b) All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. C) For Lot 43, the applicants shall provide mitigation for the removal of Tree #31 through on-site replanting, off site replanting, or payment in lieu of planting as provided for in AMC 18.61.084. d) Driveways greater than 50 feet in length, which are considered by definition to be flag drives and thus subject to the flag drive standards, shall be constructed according to flag drive requirements that a 12-foot paved width and 15-foot clear width be maintained, and that parking spaces be configured so that vehicles can turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. Planning Action 2007-01398 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Repon.dds Applicant: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC Page 17 of 17 110 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE PROPOSED 6-LOT OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION, PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRIANTS PERMIT, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 500 STRAWBERRY LANE r .'vrea^' ° F p .s _ a x+ us i -vpl c. ,u°J ~~~n ~ ~ !lta~Rfi { t~ ag^t~ ~Xy~{'~$~w§ r $ ~'a a SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON SUBMITTED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC D February 8"i, 2008 Page I of 34 ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 500 Strawberry Lane; 391E 08AC 201 PROJECT INFORMATION: APPLICANTS: LAND USE PLANNING: Robert & Laura McLellan Urban Development Services, LLC 500 Strawberry Lane 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 482-7040 Tel: 482-3334 DRAFTING ARBORIST: Computerized Architecture Drafting Upper Limb-it Tree Service 170 Ashland Loop Road P.O. Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 488-5899 Tel: 482-3667 SURVEYOR: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Polaris Land Survey Laurie Sager P.O. Box 459 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 201 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 482-5009 Tel: 941-7659 DESIGN: CIVIL ENGINEERING: Fulcrum Builders Construction Engineering Consultants 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 203 P.O. Box 1724 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501 Tel: 890-2159 Tel: 779-5268 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: RR-.5-P. LOT STATISTICS: Project Area: 4.65 acres Area Allocation: Private: 4.15 acres Common Open Space:.50 acres i APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: Rural Residential, Chapter 18.16 Performance Standards Option, Chapter 18.88 Tree Preservation & Protection, Chapter 18.61 Physical & Environmental Constraints, Chapter 18.62 t D f Page 2 of 34 112 ent ADJACENT ZONING/USE: West: RR-.5-P, Rural Residential East: RR-.5-P, Rural Residential South: W-R; Woodland Residential North: RR-.5-P, Rural Residential Subject Site: RR-.5-P, Rural Residential PLANNING ACTION: The application is for an Outline Plan Subdivision for a six-lot Performance Standards Option Subdivision for the property at 500 Strawberry Lane. Of the proposed six-lots, one has an existing single family residence and one is a common open space area consisting of .5 acres. The application includes a Tree Removal Permit and a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit as the property is within the designated Hillside Overlay Zone. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 500 Strawberry Lane, Assessor's Map #391E 08AC; Tax Lot 201, on the southwest comer on Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road (below water tank). The parcel is irregular shaped with approximately 170' of frontage along Strawberry Lane and 935' along Hitt Road. The Strawberry Lane frontage is broken-up by a .51 acre parcel owned by Karen Darling (490 Strawberry Lane) which once was part of the subject property and partitioned in 1994 (P-16-1994). A 42' property width (flag pole) and 12' flag driveway leading to the property owner's house is west of 490 Strawberry Lane and 128' of property width is on the east side. Curbside sidewalks exist along the two street frontages, but for approximately 20' along Strawberry Lane and 360' along Hitt Road (far south end - at the top). The property has a range of slopes from 0 to 40% with the steeper slopes on the south side. Along Hitt Road and to a lesser degree along Strawberry Lane, severe cut slopes exist primarily due to the City's widening and the recent improvements of both public streets. The site has a numerous Oak Trees, but most are less than 6" d.b.h. and most are located south of the property owner's house. The trees greater than 6" d.b.h. are identified on the attached Site Plan and are generally grouped together. Other than to the south, the property has a number of recently approved subdivisions and partitions with housing construction in process. The subject property owners have owned the property since 2000 and constructed the existing house in 2002. The property owners are active community members and in particular, Robert McLellan was the principal founder in the Ashland Woodlands Trail Association and has helped in the coordination, construction and maintenance of many pedestrian trails in Ashland - one of which runs along the south end of the property connecting Hitt Road with Birdsong Lane. The existing house is a single level home constructed by Dale and Dean Shostrum in 2002 and is considered by many as being one of the nicest architecturally constructed homes in Ashland. In addition, the home was specifically designed to blend into its natural surroundings by being-single level with a shallow roof line and a concave footprint limiting the building's mass from any one direction. In addition, architectural elements such as the use of natural building materials and colors to mitigate the home's exposure were used: Overall, Page 3 of 34 113 the home is probably one of the nicest and most discrete hillside homes in Ashland and an example of superb hillside development. Because of these qualities, the property owners have designed the proposed subdivision with these same principals in mind. BACKGROUND: The property was partitioned in 1994 (P-16-1994) into two parcels with one being .508 acres (490 Strawberry Lane) and the subject parcel being 4.622 acres. The existing house at 490 Strawberry Lane, owned by the Darling family, was constructed in 1938 and one of the only houses in this area for many years. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The subdivision proposal was comprehensively designed and developed with the help of the property owners, a Land Use Planner, a Landscape Architect, a Tree Arborist, a Civil Engineer, a Geo-technical Engineer and a house Designer/Contractor specializing in hillside homes (Jessie Blue, Fulcrum Builders). The primary concept of the subdivision design was to create new lots that minimized typical hillside disturbance such as: 1) limiting hillside cuts and fills, 2) limiting hillside erosion, and 3) limiting residential home mass. Site Plan: The attached site plans identify the proposed lot design, existing house location, neighboring properties and houses, circulation pattern, common open space area, utilities, building envelopes, driveway locations and possible house footprint "scenarios". Also included on the Site Plan are cross-sections showing the existing home and example future homes as they relate to the property's natural topography, the existing house and each other. Each lot has unique planning features and a variety of strategies have been incorporated in an attempt to limit their hillside and visual impact: Lot #I (corner lot): The building envelope for Lot #1 has been designed in consultation with the adjacent neighbor in order to protect her eastern views which comprise the southern half of Ashland. In addition, the building envelope has been setback from her adjacent property line to not only respect her property, but to also create as large as a buffer as possible to retain the area's rural atmosphere. The building envelope also establishes greater setback distances from Hitt Road, Strawberry Lane and site's largest grouping of Oak Trees (711 to 20" d.b.h.). Because of the drastic earth cut along Hitt Road created by the City street improvements, the driveway for Lot 41 has been located at the upper most or "most level" portion of the property which minimizes unnecessary cut and fills. Lot #2: The building envelope for Lot #2 has been designed to mostly respect the site's largest grouping of Oak Trees as well as the existing house. The building setback is approximately 30' from the adjacent Oak Trees on Lot #1 and 90' from the existing house. In addition, the lot's driveway has been designed to approach the building envelope with as minimal earth disturbance as possible by entering the property at a shallow point in the Hitt Road embankment and then paralleling the contour lines into the low side of the envelope where the future home's garage is most likely to go. Lot #3: Considering the central location of Lot #3 being between a few houses (the existing house, Karen Darling's house and the new houses off Birdsong Lane), the building envelope for Lot #3 has primarily been designed to respect the neighboring houses and future houses by Page 4 of 34 114 having larger than required setbacks. As such, the proposed building envelope for Lot #3 shows a front setback of 20' and an overall setback of 100' from Karen Darling's house (490 Strawberry Lane); a side yard (west) setback of 20' and 40' from the adjacent house off Birdsong Lane; a side yard (east) setback of 100' and 150' from Lot #2's building envelope; and a rear setback of 20' and 80' from the existing house. NOTE: The standard setback in the RR-.5 zone are 20' for the_ front, 5' side and 10' rear. Lot 04: Other than than the new driveway extending in from Hitt Road, no changes are expected as the existing home is not proposed to be modified. Lot #5: The building envelope for Lot #5 was predominately located based on the most logical and most sensitive point to place the driveway as the slopes to the south start to exceed 35%. Once the driveway was determined, the envelope was designed to be on the least sloping portion of property, respect adjacent' neighbor boundaries and to respect the existing house. Lot #6: There is no development proposed for Lot #6 as this area is the subdivision's common open space parcel owned in common by the rest of the lots. There is an existing "public" walking trail traversing the lot's southern most boundaries that extends from Hitt Road to Birdsong Lane. The lot will be deed restricted and will remain in its natural state. NOTE: Lot #6 is technically developable and could easily meet all City development standards, but the property owners have elected to place it in common ownership securing it as open space. Density: The property is 4.62 acres in size, zoned RR-.5-P with a base density of 1.20 units per acre for an allowed density of 5.54 dwelling units. Under the Performance Standards Options Subdivision process, the density bonus options are available allowing additional lots, but again, the property owners have elected to not increase the density beyond the proposed five (1 existing and 4 new). Elevation Height Limit (Maximum Building Height): Within the RR-5 zone and Hillside zones, the maximum building height limitation is 35'. However, the applicants are proposing a lower height in order to preserve views, reduce visual hillside mass and make future property owners cognizant of the expectations for not only their lot, but also their neighbors. In doing so, the applicant's hope it will add value to the lots as buyers will have some predictability of what could be constructed on the neighboring lot. This is best illustrated on the attached site plan where it shows cross-sections of future homes and how each home's height is "capped" based upon the finished floor elevation of the home behind it. For example, the existing home at 500 Strawberry Lane has a finished floor elevation of 2423 and the future homes below the existing home (Lots #2 and #3) both have a "maximum building elevation height limit" of 2429 (includes 6' of height for a person standing at their window). In simple terms, the future homes in that location could not build beyond the elevation plane of 2429. For example, the cross-sections show the home on Lot #2 as having a finished floor elevation 2402 and the home on Lot #3 as having a finished floor elevation of 2398 meaning their maximum heights would be 27' and 31' tall respectively. Page 5 of 34 115 Lot #1 Elevation Height Limit: 2402 (*approximate max height 29') Lot #2 Elevation Height Limit: 2429 (*approximate max height 27') Lot #3 Elevation Height Limit: 2429 (*approximate max height 31') Lot #4 Elevation Height Limit: 2449 (*approximate max height 26') Lot #5 Elevation Height Limit: 2469 (*approximate max height 26') Lot #6 Elevation Height Limit: Not applicable (common open space) *Note: It should be understood that if a homeowner elected to construct their home "below° the planned finished floor elevation (i.e., lowering the home into the earth), the home's height could be increased but that the maximum elevation plane as proposed would still not be permitted to be exceeded. For example, the fixture home on Lot 42 could start their.inished floor elevation at 2400, but not exceed the maximum elevation place of 2429 allowing a maximum building height of 29' tall. Driveway Design: Each lots driveway has been preliminary designed and engineered in order to ensure the driveway's entrance is at the optimal location. The driveway locations are designed to access their lots at the "shallowest" point of the property minimizing earth disturbance. In addition, their location and meandering design limits any impacts onto adjacent trees. Lastly, each driveway has been positioned and designed so that the driveway aligns with each lot's planned finished floor elevations noted above and each are intended to be constructed prior to the house construction. Trees: The site has numerous trees, mostly of which are less than 6" in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and most are either above the existing house or along the Hitt Road right-of- way. Most of these trees are either Manzanita, Madrone, or small scrub Oak Trees and are densely intermixed. However, there are 72 trees on the property greater than 6" d.b.h., yet only 13 of these trees are within building envelopes and are proposed to be removed. However, it's important to note the applicants do not intend to immediately remove the trees, but leave that decision for the future lot owners based upon their own design preferences. It's highly likely that a number of the trees will be retained, but for the few that are centered within the envelope. All of the trees outside the building envelopes will be retained. Geotechnical Report: The property is located within the Hillside Development overlay zone. The subdivision was designed in consultation with a Geotechnical Engineer as outlined in Chapter 18.62.080 4. in order to demonstrate the site is stable for the proposed development. The engineering report was completed by Amrhein Associates in October of 2007 and was then based upon a 7-lot subdivision. Nevertheless, the report concludes (pg. 4) the site is feasible to accommodate the proposed development and also offers recommendations to mitigate site disturbances such as: 1) Site Preparation which discusses surface preparation techniques for areas having loose organic matter; 2) Structural Fill where fill materials must have certain qualities and preparations; 3) Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes where maximum cut and fill amounts are described including erosion control measures; 4) Stacked Block Walls where it discusses construction techniques and maximum heights; 5) Backfilled Retaining Walls discusses backfilling treatments and compaction requirements; and 6) Temporary Erosion Control Measures where the Geotechnical Engineer describes various( techniques to Page 6 of 34 116 limit and control typical erosion issues during and post construction. Lastly, the report includes an Inspection Schedule (pg. 9) which specifically list key times when the engineer should be present in order to verify all of the recommendations within the report are being complied with. Lastly, it should be noted the subject property does have slopes greater than 35%, but all of these areas are at the far southern end of the property (below water tower) and no development is proposed in these areas. In fact, the only lot that will be subject to hillside development standards will be Lot #5 as the slopes within the building envelope are between 17% and 33%. Solar Access: All of the lots meet the Solar Access Performance Standards listed under Chapter 18.70.050 A. and each lots north-south width easily accommodates a 21' tall building so that its shadow setback does not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. However, because the lots have been designed with building envelopes oriented towards the northern portion of the lots and an Elevation Height Limit as described above, the applicants are proposing to meet the performance provisions noted in Chapter 18.70.050 B. where a solar envelope extends beyond the northem property line, but not onto the northern properties building envelope (i.e. heated space). The performance standards solar envelope for each lot is as follows: Lot #1: The solar access envelope is not to extend beyond the width of the Strawberry Lane right-of-way. This is a standard solar provision as permitted under Chapter 18.70.020 D. Lot #2: The solar access envelope is not to exceed 35' of horizontal distance which allows the solar shadow to extend to the southern edge of the building envelope on Lot #1. Considering the solar envelope only falls on yard area and not on heated space, there is no net loss of solar. In. addition, the large grouping of Oak trees between Lot #1 and Lot #2 already shadows the subject building envelope. Lot 43: The solar access envelope shall not exceed 20' as the adjacent property (490 Strawberry Lane) is not part of the subdivision and standard solar shadow provisions apply. As such, the shadow produced on Lot #3 will not exceed what a 6' fence shadows along the shared property line. Lot #4: The existing home on Lot #4 has a north producing shadow of approximately 31' with a north lot line of 55'. Lot #5: The north slope on Lot 45 is approximately 17% with a proposed solar access envelope not to exceed 82' of horizontal distance. This would allow a solar shadow to extend to the southern edge of the existing house on Lot 44. Considering the solar envelope only falls on yard area and not on heated space, there is no net loss of solar. In addition, the large grouping of trees between Lot #4 and Lot #5 already shadows the existing home. Nevertheless, under this provision, the maximum height limit at the lots: most northern building envelope line would be approximately 22'. Page 7 of 34 117 Lot #6: Not applicable as no structures are proposed. Lot Coverage: Within the RR-.5 zone, the maximum lot coverage for an individual parcel is 20%. However, in Performance Standards Developments, where building envelopes and driveways are constrained by shape, size and/or length in order for natural features to be retained or mitigated, the coverage issue for individual lots becomes critical. This is compounded by the applicant's efforts to provide a more horizontal footprint rather than a vertical one where lot coverage can actually force homes to be taller and have more mass - thus becoming more visible. Because the applicants propose to retain the most visible portion of the property as common open space, the applicant's are proposing the common open space's lot coverage allowance be allocated to the remaining parcels as follows: Lot #1: 26% Lot #2: 26% Lot #3: 28% Lot #4: 20% Lot #5: 20% Lot #6: 0% (common open space) Maximum Total Average Lot Coverage: 20% Utilities: All public utilities are available to service the subject proposal and are located within the.adjacent Strawberry Lane or Hitt Road rights-of-way. Multiple meetings have been held with the Ashland Public Works, Engineering, Fire, Sewer and Electrical Departments in order to verify and coordinate service abilities and connection points. All of the departments stated there is capacity to service the four new homes. In addition, the project's Civil Engineer, in consultation with the project's Landscape Architect and Arborist, has designed all new service connections to extend at right angles into and through each new lot's proposed driveways in an attempt to minimize site disturbances. Nevertheless, disturbances in areas greater than 25% slope, a geotechnical engineer will provide technical advice in an attempt to mitigate erosion possibilities. Neighborhood Meetings/Issues: Over the last year during the planning of this proposal, the applicants and/or the project's Land Use Planner, had met with the adjacent property owners to discuss potential issues. Although no specific issues were raised regarding the applicable criteria, there were two neighbors who specifically requested the owners and project team consider the following: Karen Darling (490 Strawberry Lane): a) that views to her east be retained; b) that the trees along her property line be retained and not impacted; c) that the existing flag driveway to her west not have multiple homes accessing from it. Catherine Dimino (423 Strawberry Lane): d) that no development occur on Lot #1; e) that the subdivision be reduced by one lot; f) That deed restrictions be adopted similar to her subdivision's deed restrictions and those recently self-imposed on the City of Ashland's property at Westwood Drive and Strawberry Lane. D Page 8 of 34 118 NOTE: Although not necessarily required to do, the property owners and project planner took each request seriously and attempted to address each request by incorporating the following into the planning action: a) That the views.from Karen Darling's house be retained: The building envelope for Lot #1 illustrates a "line" extending from Mrs. Darling's kitchen window (approximately) due east towards the southern and eastern portions of Ashland. The line essentially is the building envelope line where no structures on Lot #1 could interfere with this view. Although this request, in combination with the lot's trees, makes the building envelope confined, the property owners and project team want to be respectful neighbors and comply with Mrs. Darling's wishes. b) That the trees along Mrs. Darling's property line be retained and not impacted,, The building envelope for Lot 41 shows a 40' setback (5' setback permitted) between Mrs. Darling's property line and the proposed building envelope. Similar to the previous response, in combination with the lot's trees, the request makes the building envelope confined, but the property owners and project team want to be respectful neighbors and comply with Mrs. Darling's wishes. c) That the existing flag driveway to the west of Karen Darling's house not have multiple homes accessing from it-- The applicants have designed the lot design so that only one lot is served off of the existing flag driveway. d) Mrs. Dimino's request that no development occur on Lot #1; Unfortunately, the applicants could not agree to this request. Although the request appeared to be based upon Mrs. Dimino's desire to retain her views, the alternative lot placement (above Lot #5) would have been far more impacting to the community and thus not considered. The applicants did offer to sell the parcel to Mrs. Dimino. e) Mrs. Dimino's request that the subdivision be reduced by one lot; The applicants have agreed to this provision, although not necessarily due to Mrs. Dimino's request. During the preliminary design of the subdivision, the area where Lot #5 is currently proposed, a second lot was planned. Under the Performance Standards Option, the allowed base density for this 4.62 acre property is 5.54 units, but with a density bonus would easily allow 6 lots. Nevertheless, the property owners decided to reduce the amount from 6 to 5 lots. NOTE: It should be noted that although Mrs. Dimino also requested Lot #1 to be removed, due to its placement, slope, tree locations, etc., the most ecological and most "public" benefiting reduction is in fact the southern most developable lot (above Lot #5), which the applicant has designated as common open space. .)g That deed restrictions be adopted similar to her subdivision's deed restrictions and those recently self-imposed on the City of Ashland's property at Westwood Drive and Strawberry Lane. The applicants have agreed to this provision and have written "draft" deed restrictions to eventually be refined by an Attorney at Law. The draft deed restrictions are attached and were generally "copied" from the City's deed restriction document, but also include language regarding the maximum height of buildings. 1 Page 9 of 34 119 Fuels Reduction Plan: Attached is a Fire Prevention and Control Plan prepared in consultation with the Ashland Fire Department and the project Arborist. The plan complies with the provisions noted in Chapter 18.62.090 A. and B. All fuels reduction will occur prior to final plat with re-verification prior to combustible construction on Lot #5. Gate Relocation: The existing water tower access gate on Hitt Road will be relocated approximately 30' further to the south in order to accommodate the driveway entrance for Lot #5. The gates relocation has been coordinated with the Ashland Fire and Public Work's Department, but essentially the only difference will be its location. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 18.88.030 Outline Plan Criteria: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. All applicable City ordinances have been met with the submitted application. 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 that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. All public utilities are available to service the subject proposal and are located within the adjacent Strawberry Lane or Hitt Road rights-of-way. Multiple meetings have been held with the Ashland Public Works, Engineering, Fire, Sewer and Electrical Departments in order to verify and coordinate service abilities and connection points. All of the departments stated there is capacity to service the four new homes. In addition, the project's Civil Engineer, in consultation with the project's Landscape Architect and Arborist, has designed all new private service connections to extend at right angles into and through each new lot's proposed driveways in an attempt to minimize site disturbances. Nevertheless, disturbances in areas greater than 25% slope, a geotechnical engineer will provide technical advice in an attempt to mitigate erosion possibilities. 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. The site plan has also been designed to recognize the'site's natural features such as the various large trees, various groups of trees, neighbor's trees, extreme slopes, existing earth cuts, etc. The vast majority of the site's natural elements have been incorporated into the site planning and are either outside of the building envelopes, outside the path of the new i2 Page 10 of 34 120 driveways or within the common open space area of Lot #6. In addition, the project's Civil Engineer and Landscape Architect have attempted to place the driveways and private utilities in such a way that little to no impact on the site's exposed cuts (Hitt Road) or trees will occur. Lastly, the common open space area of Lot #6 will remain in private ownership of the subdivision's property owners via a Home Owners Association (HOA) or similar instrument. Since the common open space area is intended to remain natural, the applicants do not foresee any significant issues or changes than what exists today' other than the necessary fuels reduction. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed as shown on the Comprehensive Plan. The City's Transportation Plan, Zoning or Comprehensive Plan maps do not identify the area south of the property to be urbanized. The properties to the east, west and north are either under construction with houses, have houses recently constructed or have house plans pending. Essentially, from the applicant's perspective, this property appears to be the last or one of the last remaining parcels in the Strawberry Lane neighborhood to be developed - most of which has occurred in the last five to seven years. 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. The proposed subdivision will create Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) that provides the management structure to provide the necessary maintenance of the project's open space. The applicants do not foresee the need to create an Home Owner's Association, but will provide the necessary deed restrictions as noted and a copy of the CC&R's at the time of Final Plan approval. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. The property is 4.62 acres in size, zoned RR-.5-P with a base density of 1.20 units per acre for an allowed density of 5.54 dwelling units. Under the Performance Standards Options Subdivision process, the density bonus options are available allowing additional units, but again, the property owners have elected to not increase the density beyond the proposed five (1 existing and 4 new). g. The development complies with the Street Standards, No new streets are proposed with this application as all of the proposed lots extend from existing rights-of-way. Both Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road were recently upgraded with new improvements consisting of sidewalks, curbs and gutters. •:o Page 11 of 34 121 18.88.040 Performance Standards for Residential Developments: 18.88.080 P-Overlay Zone A. The purpose of the P-overlay zone is to distinguish between those areas which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography, vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. As described above, the subject property has a number of natural constraints and is within the City's P-overlay. The property is zoned RR-.S-P and is 4.62 acres in size. Under "standard" zoning provisions, the property could theoretically be divided into 9 half-acre parcels under the partitions chapter. However, when subdividing under the Performance Standards Options Subdivision process, the base density is reduced to 1.2 units an acre or in this case 5.54 units. The applicants are proposing four new developable lots, one developed lot and one common open space lot. 18.88.070 Setbacks: A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. The attached site plan shows building envelopes with front setbacks that exceed the standard 20' front yard provisions. The lots front yard setbacks are respectively 28', 45', 160', 45, and 25'. B. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. The setbacks within the RR-.S-P zone are 20' front, 5' side, 10' street side and 10' rear. The attached site plan shows building envelopes where along the perimeter of the development all setbacks exceed (significantly) the setbacks in the RR-.S-P zoning district. C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone. The applicants are aware of the 35' maximum height restrictions noted in the RR-.S-P zoning district and are proposing a height limit less than the City's provision. This is evidenced on the attached site plan and cross sections. All height limitations will be verified at the time of the building permit. D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall be required as the minimum width between buildings. All of the proposed homes will have house designs complying with this standard. All setback dimensions will be verified at the time of the building permit in accordance with the submitted plans. Page 12 of 34 122 E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section 18.68. All of the lots meet the Solar Access Performance Standards listed under Chapter 18.70.050 A. and each lots north-south width easily accommodates a 21' tall building so that its shadow setback does not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. However, because the lots have been designed with building envelopes oriented towards the northern portion of the lots and an Elevation Height Limit as described above, the applicants are proposing to meet the performance provisions noted in Chapter 18.70.050 B. where a solar envelope extends beyond the northern property line, but not onto the northern properties building envelope (i.e. heated space). The performance standards solar envelope for each lot is as follows: Lot #1: The solar access envelope is not to extend beyond the width of the Strawberry Lane right-of-way. This is a standard solar provision as permitted under Chapter 18.70.020 D. Lot #2: The solar access envelope is not to exceed 35' of horizontal distance which allows the solar shadow to extend to the southern edge of the building envelope on Lot #1. Considering the solar envelope only falls on restricted yard area and not on heated space, there is no net loss of solar access. In addition, the large grouping of Oak trees between Lot #1 and Lot #2 already shadows the subject building envelope. Lot #3: The solar access envelope shall not exceed 20' as the adjacent property (490 Strawberry Lane) is not part of the subdivision and standard solar shadow provisions apply. As such, the shadow produced on Lot #3 will not exceed what a 6' fence shadows along the shared property line. Lot #4: The home on Lot #4 exists and the north producing shadow is approximately 31' with a north lot line of 55'. Lot #5: The north slope on Lot #5 is approximately 17% with a proposed solar access envelope not to exceed 82' of horizontal distance. This would allow a solar shadow to extend to the southern edge of the existing house on Lot #4. Considering the solar envelope only falls on restricted yard area and not on heated space, there is no net loss of solar. In addition, the large grouping of trees between Lot #4 and Lot #5 already shadows the existing home. Nevertheless, under this provision, the maximum height limit at the lots most northern building envelope line would be approximately 22'. Lot #6: Not applicable as this lot has been designated common open space. Verification of compliance will be provided at the time of the building permit in accordance with the submitted subdivision plans and documents. F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan. Page 13 of 34 123 The attached site plan identifies building envelopes complying with the setback standards for the underlying RR-.5-P zoning district. 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit: An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. The site has numerous trees, mostly of which are less than 6" in diameter at breast height . (d.b.h.) and most are either above the existing house or along the Hitt Road right-of-way. Most of these trees are either Manzanita, Madrone, or small scrub Oak Trees and are densely intermixed. However, there are 72 trees on the property greater than 6" d.b.h., yet only 13 of these trees are within building envelopes and are proposed to be removed. However, it's important to note the applicants do not intend to immediately remove the trees, but leave that decision for the future lot owners based upon their own design preferences. It's highly likely that a number of the trees will be retained, but for the few that are centered within the envelope. All of the trees outside the building envelopes will be retained. The attached Arborist's report and Tree Removal and Protection Plan identify the site's trees in accordance with these standards. The criteria are as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. None of the trees within the proposed building envelopes are considered hazardous trees. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and The trees likely to be removed due to their location within the building envelopes allows for future property owners to construct their homes in accordance with the City's various land use ordinances and Comprehensive Plan policies. All of the subject trees and their canopies have been located by a licensed surveyor and their health assessed by two arborists. 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 If the trees within the identified building envelopes are removed, the trees will be replaced with either a house or landscaping associated with the house. Overall, the removal of the -frees Page 14 of 34 i-! -i 124 will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. 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. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. No exceptions are proposed with this application. The applicants have explored a number of alternative designs to minimize not only tree loss, but also earth disturbances and hillside aesthetics. 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 applicants are aware of this provision, but due to the nature of the property and the existence of many trees already on site, the applicants and project team members request that no additional tree conditions be added. 18.61.084 Tree Mitigation Required An applicant may be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 '/-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. The tree shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. Unless otherwise directed, the applicant and project team members request that no additional on-site tree conditions be added. B. Replanting off site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available Page 15 of 34 125 space on the subject property, the replanting required in subsection A shall occur on other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, in an open space tract that is part of the same subdivision, or in a City owned or dedicated open space or park. Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval of the authorized property owners. If planting on City owned or dedicated property, the City may specify the species and size of the tree. Nothing in this section shall be construed as an obligation of the City to allow trees to be planted on City owned or dedicated property. The applicants are aware of this standard and if determined to be necessary, the applicants will comply. C. Payment in lieu of planting. If in the City's determination no feasible alternative exists to plant the required mitigation, the applicant shall pay into the tree account an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. The applicants are aware of this standard and if determined to be necessary, the applicants will comply. 18.62.040 Approval Criteria (Physical & Environmental Constraints): 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. The applicants have taken all reasonable steps as outlined in Chapter 18.62.080 (Hillside Development Standards) to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties. Not only have the applicants conversed directly and indirectly with the neighbors, they have hired a professional Geotechnical Engineer, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer, Arborist, Land Use Planner, and Home Designer to address any potential impacts associated with the construction of the lots. From the various meetings and communications, the applicants contend any and all potential 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. The applicants have considered the potential hazards the eventual development may create and have hired a Geotechnical Engineer, Mark Amrhein, Amrhein Associates, Inc., to evaluate the construction and site disturbance. The report assesses the site's existing conditions such as seismic, subsurface soils and surface soils. The report also includes mitigation language and/or graphic illustrations for site preparation, structural fill, cut and fill slopes, stacked block walls, and erosion control measures. Lastly, the report includes an "inspection schedule" as required in Chapter 18.62.080 B.9 that addresses inspection times for the Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate the site's disturbances in order to ensure the construction work is in compliance with the report. By taking these steps, the applicants Page 16 of 34 126 contend measures will be implemented to mitigate against any potential hazards the lot construction may cause. 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. The applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce any adverse impacts on the environment by hiring a professional Geotechnical Engineer, Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer, Arborist, Land Use Planner, and Home Designer to address any potential impacts associated with the construction of the lots and eventual construction of homes. From the various meetings and communications, the applicants and property owners contend any and all potential adverse impacts have been minimized. The attached Site Plans, Civil Drawings, and Tree Removal and Protection Plans illustrate how the proposed building envelopes and driveways meet the hillside development standards. 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards* to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands: 1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. No variances or exceptions are proposed with this proposal and all building envelopes and driveways are on lands less than 35% slope. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. Not applicable. The existing property has adequate buildable area less than 35% slope and can easily accommodate the proposed lots. Page 17 of 34 127 b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. Not applicable. The existing property has adequate buildable area less than 35% slope and can easily accommodate the proposed lots. 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. The proposed building envelopes are on lands with a slope of less than 35%. In fact, Lots 41- #4 have approximate slopes of 14% and only Lot #5 has slopes ranging from 17% to 33%. Lot #6 does have slopes in excess of 35% but is intended to be common open space. 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. The proposed flag drive (existing) and new driveways are located on lands less than 35% slope. However, there are existing man-made cuts due to the City's street widening along Hitt Road that exceed 35% grade, but the planned driveways only cross these short areas which are probably only 10' in depth at the most. Nevertheless, based upon precedents with other planning actions, this standard only applies to "natural" sloping lands. Regardless, the application complies with this standard. 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, the following additional information is required: A geotechnical study prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The study shall include the following information: a. Index map. b. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of previous work and discussion of field exploration methods. c. Site geology, based on a surficial survey, to include site geologic maps, description of bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc..., and structural data including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure. d. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-site development. Page 18 of 34 128 e. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint. f. Specific recommendations for cut and fill slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards. g. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to be affected by the proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive data shall include cross-sections showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test and references. h. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist. i. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site. j. Inspection schedule for the project as required in 18.62.080.8.9. k. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation pipelines. The subdivision was designed in consultation with a Geotechnical Engineer as outlined in Chapter 18.62.080 4. and included a geotechnical report with the above information in order to demonstrate the site is stable for the proposed development. The engineering report was completed by Amrhein Associates in October of 2007 and was then based upon a 7-lot subdivision. Nevertheless, the report concludes (pg. 4) the site is feasible to accommodate the proposed development and also offers recommendations to mitigate site disturbances such as: 1) Site Preparation which discusses surface preparation techniques for areas having loose organic matter; 2) Structural Fill where fill materials must have certain qualities and preparations; 3) Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes where maximum cut and fill amounts are described including erosion control measures; 4) Stacked Block Walls where it discusses construction techniques and maximum heights; 5) Backfilled Retaining Walls discusses backfilling treatments and compaction requirements; and 6) Temporary Erosion Control Measures where the Geotechnical Engineer describes various techniques to limit and control typical erosion issues during and post construction. Lastly, the report includes an Inspection Schedule (pg. 9) which specifically list key times when the engineer should be present in order to verify all of the recommendations within the report are being complied with. Lastly, it should be noted the subject property does have slopes greater than 35%, but all of these areas are at the far southern end of the property (below water tower) and no development is proposed in these areas. In fact, the only lot that will be subject to future hillside development standards will be Lot #5 as the slopes within the building envelope are between 17% and 33%. B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. The only grading, retaining walls, earth cuts and fill areas are only along the three proposed new driveways (Lot #2, Lot #4 and Lot #5) as the subdivision application does -not; include Page 19 of 34 129 houses. Nevertheless, the plans have been preliminarily designed and engineered by the Landscape Architect and Geotechnical Engineer (see Geotechnical Engineering Report, pgs. 96 & 47). At the time of Final Plan, detail engineering plans for walls will be identified and all retaining walls will be equal to or less than 4' in height. 2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. The applicants are aware of this provision and intend to complete all site disturbances between May 1 n and October 31". Considering the streets improvements are already complete and the only site disturbances to occur will be from utility services and a small portion of the driveways, it's expected the timeframe could be easily met without modification. 3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum,percentage required here is encouraged. The subject proposal greatly exceeds the minimum natural retention percentage as follows: Lot #1 (.50 acres) 25%+ 22% natural slope = 47% or 10,236 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Envelope: 6,780 sq. ft. -i Driveway: 600 sq. ft. = 7,380 sq. ft.* Total to remain in a natural state = 14,400 sq. ft. or 66% of the lot. (+19%) Lot #2 (.50 acres) 25% + 13% natural slope= 38% or 8,276 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Envelope: 7,620 sq. ft. + Driveway 956 sq. ft. = 8,876 sq. fl.* Total to remain in a natural state = 13,204 sq. ft. or 61% of the lot. (+13%) Lot #3 .50 acres 25%+ 13% natural slope = 38% or 8,276 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Envelope: 8,740 sq. ft. + Driveway 260 sq. ft. = 9,000 sq. ft.* Total to remain in a natural state = 12,780 sq. ft. or 60% of the lot. Including flag pole and flag driveway: Area to remain = 62.5% Lot #4 1.4 acres 25% + 16% natural slope = 41 % or 25,003 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Existing house, driveway(s), backyard, etc. = 15,960 sq. ft. -s iJ Total to remain in a natural state = 45,024 sq. ft. or 74% of the lot. Page 20 of 34 130 Lot #5 1.0 acres 25%+ 26% natural slope = 51% or 22,221 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Envelope: 8,205 so. ft. + Driveway: 1,500 sq. ft. = 9,705 sq. ft.* Total to remain in a natural state = 33,855 sq. ft. or 77% of the lot. Lot #6 .50 acres not applicable - common area lot (100% to remain natural) *Note: the above numbers are a "worst case" estimate as the proposed building envelopes would have to be 100% disturbed which is not likely. 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. Please refer to the attached Geotechnical Report dated October 12, 2007. The report describes the soil conditions, retaining wall standards and erosion control protections. b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) None of the proposed driveways are expected to have exposed walls or even retaining walls greater than 4' in height. The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be located a minimum setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from the nearest property tine. Cut slopes for structure foundations encouraging the reduction of effective visual bulk, such as split pad or stepped footings shall be exempted from the height limitations of this section. (See Graphic) None of the proposed driveways are expected to have exposed walls or even retaining walls greater than 4' in height and all driveways are at least 10' from any single property line. c. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction of top soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long • . 1J Page 21 of 34 rj 8 2008 r, ; 131 term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. All earth disturbances for cut and fill area along the driveways will be revegitated and irrigated. All planting plans will be completed by a licensed Landscape Architect. All planting and irrigation plans to be submitted at time of Final Plan. 5. Grading - fills. On all till slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line. All fill areas for the driveways will be less than 20'. b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. J All fill areas for the driveways will be protected with erosion control netting or functional equivalent. At time of final plan, specific details as to erosion control elements will be submitted. c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. The project has been preliminary engineered with all utilities, as much as possible, to extend from the existing rights-of-way through the driveway. All other utility lines appear to be outside of any fill areas. d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. As noted above, all earth disturbances for cut and fill area along the driveways or utility service areas will be revegitated and irrigated. All planting plans will be completed by a licensed Landscape Architect. All planting and irrigation plans to be submitted at time of Final Plan and completed prior to signature of final plat. Page 22 of 34 132 6. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially . established within one year of installation. All planting plans along the driveway and service areas will be completed by a licensed Landscape Architect. All planting and irrigation plans to be submitted at time of Final Plan and installed prior to signature of final plat. All plantings will be substantially established after their first year of installation. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. The applicants are aware of this long term maintenance provision and will provide the necessary documentation in the CC&R's to verify that such mechanisms are in place. Essentially, the CC&R's will note that all retaining walls along the driveways will be retained in perpetuity. b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Prior to issuance of an Excavation Permit or any construction, the applicants will provide a performance bond or letter of credit of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the driveway's retaining walls and any utility service areas. 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. - :i Page 23 of 34 133 No buildings are proposed as the proposal is for a subdivision. The applicants do intend to construct a small portion of the driveways leading to the building envelopes, but will sell the lots to prospective buyers who will then file building plans with the City. However, it should be noted that only Lot #5, has slopes over 25% and will be subject to the hillside provisions. All other proposed lots have natural slopes less than 25% and are not subject to further Hillside Ordinance provisions. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. As previously noted, the subdivision was designed in consultation with a Geotechnical Engineer. At no time did the engineer identify hazardous or unstable portions of the property. c. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope. No buildings are proposed as the proposal is for a subdivision. The applicants do intend to construct a small portion of the driveways leading to the building envelopes, but will sell the lots to prospective buyers who will then file building plans with the City. However, the applicants have designed building envelopes that are relatively reasonable in size and have even included concept footprints in order to verify the ability to accommodate a reasonably sized home, provide for maximum height provisions and to establish driveway locations. 9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. The applicants are aware of this provision and will retain the services of the project's Geotechnical Engineer throughout the subdivision's driveway and utility service installations. In addition, the project Arborist will also be retained in order to verify service utility locations and tree protection measures are met. C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. Page 24 of 34 134 The attached civil engineering plans identify stormwater facilities for future homes and driveways. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. The stormwater detention system will be installed at the time of the subdivision improvements with all other stormwater detention systems to be installed with the construction of the home as the system itself is engineered based upon the amount of impervious surface area typically determined with the house plans. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. Stormwater facilities have been designed to divert surface water away from cut faces and sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. No natural drainage systems are on this property. e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. The storm water detention systems planned for each lot will be detention pipes under and near the proposed driveways as identified on the preliminary civil improvement plans. Because of the site's many Oak Trees, the detention pipes allow stormwater to be retained and slowed during peak volumes but not impact the root zones of the Oak Trees that are highly susceptible to fungus. Again, the civil plans have been completed under the direction of the project's Geotechnical Engineer, Arborist and Landscape Architect (also an Arborist). f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. Stormwater facilities have been designed to divert surface water away from exposed surfaces and either towards the proposed stormwater detention pipes or towards raised curbs. g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Page 25 of 34 135 The storm water detention systems planned for each lot will be detention pipes under and near the proposed driveways as identified on the preliminary civil improvement plans. Because of the site's many Oak Trees, the detention pipes allow stormwater to be retained and slowed during peak volumes but not impact the root zones of the Oak Trees that are highly susceptible to fungus. Again, the civil plans have been completed under the direction of the project's Geotechnical Engineer, Arborist and Landscape Architect (also an Arborist). At the time of construction, permits for the private detention pipes will be processed with the City's Building Official. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements:. 1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Other than the trees within the common open space area, all of the site's trees greater then 6" d.b.h. and their canopies have been located by a licensed surveyor and their health assessed by two arborists in accordance with this particular standard. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non- vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. D e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages. Page 26 of 34 136 s,, C Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. The attached Arborist's report and attached Tree Removal and Protection Plan identify the sites trees in accordance with these standards. All of the trees have been thoroughly evaluated by the project's Arborist as well as a Landscape Architect (also an Arborist) to ascertain the tree's species, structure, size and potential longevity as it relates to the proposed development plans. 3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h. or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h. or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. All of the site's most significant trees have been thoroughly evaluated by the project's Arborist as well as a Landscape Architect (also an Arborist) to ascertain the tree's species, structure, size and potential longevity as it relates to the proposed development plans. The applicants contend as many as these trees have been incorporated into the project design whenever possible. a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. The project's driveways, buildings, utilities, most likely parking areas, and other site disturbances have been located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site will be preserved. b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. As with the driveways and utilities, the proposed building envelopes have been located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site will be preserved. Most of the lot's vegetation has already been cleared of fuels, but for the common area lot. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. The project's utilities and other site disturbances have been located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site (and trees along neighboring property lines) will be preserved. 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: :D Page 27 of 34 137 a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. The attached Tree Removal and Protection Plan (L-1) identifies tree protection fencing adjacent to trees where disturbance may occur. Prior to earth disturbance for the driveways or installation of service utilities, all trees to be preserved will be clearly marked and a Tree Verification Permit will be obtained. b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. One of the primary reasons the driveways are proposed to be installed with the subdivision improvements is to create a construction staging area during home construction which also minimizes track-out issues and unnecessary site disturbances. Also, tree protection fencing will be installed as identified on the attached Tree Removal and Protection Plan (LI) during house construction. All trees to be preserved will be clearly marked and a Tree Verification Permit obtained prior to site disturbance. c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation will occur within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated, as approved by the City, and project Arborist or Landscape Architect. d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. The storm water detention systems planned for each lot will be detention pipes under and near the proposed driveways as identified on the preliminary civil improvement plans. Because of the site's many Oak Trees, the detention pipes allow stormwater to be retained and slowed during peak volumes but not impact the root zones of the Oak Trees that are highly susceptible to fungus. Again, the civil plans have been completed under the direction of the project's Geotechnical Engineer, Arborist and Landscape Architect (also an Arborist). At the Page 28 of 34 138 time of construction, permits for the private detention pipes will be processed with the City's Building Official. e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. The applicants are aware of this provision and agree. 5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. The project's driveways, future buildings, utilities, most likely parking areas, and other site disturbances have been located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site will be preserved. No trees greater than 6" d.b.h. are proposed to be removed with the subdivision's construction as only a portion of the driveways and service connections will be constructed with the final plat. Regardless, the subdivision has been designed to allow trees within the identified building envelopes to be removed. 6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details. No trees greater than 6" d.b.h. are proposed to be removed with the subdivision's construction as only a portion of the driveways and service connections will be constructed with the final plat. Regardless, the subdivision has been designed to allow trees within the identified building envelopes to be removed. Because of the site's many trees. and wildfire overlay zone designation, no replacement trees are proposed. Page 29 of 34 139 b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site- specific evidence and testimony. Because of the site's many trees and wildfire overlay zone designation, no replacement trees are proposed. c. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. Again, because of the site's many trees and wildfire overlay zone designation, no replacement trees are proposed. 7. Enforcement. a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per sear. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. The applicants are aware of these provisions. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation will occur within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated, as approved by the City, and project Arborist or Landscape Architect. E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards: Page 30 of 34 140 1. Building Envelopes. All newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition, shall contain building envelopes conforming to the following standards: a. The building envelope shall contain a buildable area with a slope of 35% or less. b. Building envelopes and lot design shall address the retention of a percentage of the lot in a natural state as required in 18.62.080.B.3. c. Building envelopes shall be designed and located to maximize tree conservation as required in 18.62.080.D.3. while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. d. It is recommended that building envelope locations should be located to avoid ridgeline exposures, and designed such that the roofline of a building within the envelope does not project above the ridgeline. The site plan has also been designed to recognize the site's natural features such as not disturbing natural slopes greater than 35%, the various large trees, various groupings of trees, neighbor's trees, existing earth cuts, etc. The vast majority of these elements have been incorporated into the site planning and are either outside of the building envelopes, outside the path of the new driveways or within the common open space area of Lot #6. The applicants have also spent a significant amount of effort on site planning elements such as a maximum height limit, view protections, house orientations. As noted previously, the subject proposal greatly exceeds the minimum natural retention percentage as follows: Lot #1 (.50 acres) 25% + 22% natural slope = 47% or 10,236 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Envelope: 6,780 sq. ft. + Driveway: 600 sq. ft.=7,380 sq. R.* Total to remain in a natural state = 14,400 sq. ft, or 66% of the lot. (+19%) Lot #2 (.50 acres) 25%+ 13% natural slope= 38% or 8,276 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Envelope: 7,620 sq. ft. + Driveway 956 sq. ft. = 8,876 sq. ft.* Total to remain in a natural state = 13,204 sq. ft. or 61% of the lot. (+13%) Lot #3 .50 acres 25% + 13% natural slope = 38% or 8,276 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Envelope: 8,740 sq. ft. + Driveway 260 sq. ft. = 9,000 sq. ft.* Total to remain in a natural state = 12,780 sq. ft. or 60% of the lot. Including flag pole and flag driveway: Area to remain = 62.5% Lot #4 1.4 acres 25% + 16% natural slope = 41 % or 25,003 sq. A. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Existing house, driveway(s), backyard, etc. = 15,960 sq. ft. Total to remain in a natural state = 45,024 sq. ft. or 74% of the lot. Lot #5 1.0 acres 25% + 26% natural slope = 51 % or 22,221 sq. ft. to remain natural (minimum) Proposed: Envelope: 8,205 sq. ft. + Driveway: 1,500 sq. ft. = 9,705 sq. ft.* Total to remain in a natural state = 33,855 sq. ft. or 77% of the lot. Page 31 of 34 141 Lot #6 .50 acres not applicable - common area lot (100% to remain natural) *Note: the above numbers are a "worst case" estimate as the proposed building envelopes would have to be 100% disturbed which is not likely. 2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques, buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the designated Historic District, shall incorporate the following into the building design and indicate features on required building permits: No buildings are proposed as the proposal is for a subdivision only. The applicants do intend to construct a small portion of the driveways leading to the building envelopes, but will sell the lots to prospective buyers who will then file building plans with the City. However, the applicants have designed building envelopes that are relatively reasonable in size and have even included concept footprints in order to verify the ability to accommodate a reasonably sized home, provide for maximum height provisions and to establish driveway locations. a. Hillside Building Height. The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from the natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard, or other feature perpendicular to that grade. Maximum Hillside Building Height shall be 35 feet. Within the RR-5 zone and Hillside zones, the maximum building height limitation is 35'. However, the applicants are proposing a lower height in order to preserve views, reduce visual hillside mass and make future property owners cognizant of the expectations for not only their lot, but also their neighbors. In doing so, the applicant's hope it will add value to the lots as buyers will have some predictability of what could be constructed on the neighboring lot. This is best illustrated on the attached site plan where it shows cross-sections of future homes and how each home's height is "capped" based upon the finished floor elevation of the home behind it. For example, the existing home at 500 Strawberry Lane has a ,finished floor elevation of 2420 and the future homes below the existing home (Lots #2 and #3) both have a "maximum building elevation height limit" of 2426 (includes 6' of height for a person standing at their window). In simple terms, the future homes could not build beyond the elevation plane of 2426. For example, the cross-sections show the home on Lot #2 as having a finished floor elevation 2402 and the home on Lot 43 as having a finished floor elevation of 2398 meaning their heights would be 24' and 28' tall. Note: it should be understood that if a homeowner elected to construct their home "below" the plannedffinished floor elevation (i.e., lowering the home into the earth), the home's height could be increased but that the maximum elevation plane as proposed would still not be permitted to be exceeded. For example, the future home on Lot #2 could start their finished floor elevation at 2400, but have a maximum building height of 26' tall. b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. Page 32 of 34 142 Not applicable as no homes are not proposed at this time. (1). Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the structure to more closely follow the slope. (2). Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope. Not applicable as no homes are not proposed at this time. c. A building stepback shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20 feet in height, as measured above natural grade. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of six feet. No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. (see graphic) Not applicable as no homes are not proposed at this time. d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet. (graphic available on original ordinance) Not applicable as no homes are not proposed at this time. e. It is recommended that roof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill 'elevations should be avoided, however smaller gables may be permitted. (graphic available on original ordinance) Not applicable as no homes are not proposed at this time. E It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor space for upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in excess of 12 feet on downhill elevations should be avoided. Not applicable as no homes are not proposed at this time. g. It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment. Not applicable as no homes are not proposed at this time. F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by ........,.v an engineer. Page 33 of 34 143 Not applicable as no homes are not proposed at this time. G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. The site plan has also been designed to recognize the site's natural features such as the various large trees, various groups of trees, neighbor's trees, extreme slopes, existing earth cuts, etc. The vast majority of the site's natural elements have been incorporated into the site planning and are either outside of the building envelopes, outside the path of the new driveways or within the common open space area of Lot #6. H. Administrative Variance From Development Standards for Hillside Lands - 18.62.080. A variance under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site; 2. The variance will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter; 3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and 4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080. No variances are being requested with this application. Conclusion: Overall, the applicants and project consultants believe the submitted Outline subdivision plan will be an example of preferred hillside development planning in Ashland. A significant amount of effort was spent on minimizing typical hillside mass and disturbance of natural features. Lastly, the applicants contend that at least one additional lot could have been created, but that, as proposed, the applicants believe the subject property and neighboring properties will benefit. Attachments: Site Plan & Cross Sections Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan (C.1) Deed Restrictions (draft) Conceptual Utility Plan (C.2) Geotechnical Report Topographic Survey Tree Removal and Protection Plan (L-1) Site Plan (L-2) r' D Fire Prevention & Control Plan / Erosion Control Plan (L-3) -t.7 E %009 Page 34 of 34 ,gent 144 I-- lw APPROX. /ls coR. ' SEE A+aa 3e lE ane ea o:o. a.neu ,•.n „r. 111 101 2,04 Ac 103 n 102 1.51 AC. 0.9 AC, 0.57 At OPEN 0.516A, PAR. 3 + 1 1 S~f 1 J, cs nrae PARM 1 CS 15211 \1l 1465 "e+ _ PAR. y- CS-fw? ~f CShc59 e 1 o.e1 110 V - 0.57 A, ppgg SPACE i.17 A, 100 ..E•, 5-1 1.169, 5 r.a. 19 = t5-7153 ,C~ a ~.u PARCEL 2 ~ ue.m r - LANE STRAWBERRY n.,r ,r CS-IMJ7 = 204 202 p~ 1 0.51 AC. 300 0.29 203 Ax _ 0.21 AC. 400 0.41 A, I OPEN = _ 0.409. ~l SS)) SPACE - - CS-12075 10$ 211 ~~10' f'l %jS Me PAR.3 0.50AC. 0, 30 Ae ,e.u u,•,rm.. CSIPI3 205 0.43h 201 50 5 05-IH11 4,I2 R. 0.33 ] Ac 502 Anl 700 0.05 AS ~ A o 1.24 X. 200 4 Ac ~J a P y.. 0,24 A, F+ ?p fir] V ~J SPACE 00 ~~f CS 17M .,0•. "r~.J 500 y 5~5 ,p \ 'i =PSTAc 4.10 A, 209 0.13 cs Ims OPEN 1 S~S~~ '1 7 1.6 206 _ ~l = x 0. 02 k 1 F cS 11088 € CS IA95 I 506 CS rmm 0.23 A, 3 5 ! :J 507 501 0.35 Ac 7 SPACE oaOA, `f OPEN SPACE 506 1~~) J CJ J •.6•, PAR. 2 0.48 A, !+t\J nvi r y '3 - t'~~~ V LSI0fi50 ~ „n S. SEE AIAP 39 IE BOB 145 II IL J ' • ' II 402 661! 06616.&6 7610! I,TYf E ~ t68 .':141 1, u119DA~1 74Y i Front Counlor Logand womlonma r.awr. /F Tax Lm Oultmos 3fl1EQ8B0• Q1 r.=La naa,na.! ,63 is 8.1dilpa 102. Ij~] Ambul.ace 56rvfa6 04 ~tT~'~ 4Y ~ ~ S 1 r' Fri 1p 243 ~ 1 6rvE.z."" '4'~ I^s QO - ft kws a. ik~yi3 a 14 105 4Y 1 'f"7 s ~ o .my~.~y mrL+v w'~r~;Y y4pyj rFq _ ,j ~Vj, ss.~++"a cur rr.r)°~~r~~9 ~a °'t~ SQA L7..; 205 yu~ '!rR'y~ r ~"e fy+Y'4~~~~6rrrS i ~t Y~'S~y`~ y:1~ 210 Jav f 41 p~~y"1~ wJ t k ~ n~ 205s 391EOBAC ~,Y s f ' Ashland Fire & Rescue r• 2QQ u ~.3 tY}yyryA S` _ i vvt~,Y:i~Y r~51~) Vw~13 / ! 1 267 ~ ~p .5, kFrv ~~~i 45 y'a 546. II E v l- h 1f j 261 I 391E0808 260 14t,?." F1 lmg, r,1 JACKSON < COUNTY 011 oe ai Ullllaoa~ l1 Ip~ 111 0 m m~'Ee(If81'Ia 4ullitoUlc ...q a G CSI IIf4PA0E.0 AP ~li iE > oP(Emnro: 01 W.E 1 U Ob oll a G9fEtlialll aQ9o0A E0 mE. pam ..a;u ®Eel mu. n.rlu.e 146 ~ umla l0aal® L [3. u3t h.y k~.1 Lr If . ~ fz N7 - 1. to ~.is~~ vawsL d f~ ~ ui~,urn m„ a r-v*a~. a 0 ~ ~ Y 1 ~ ~l~ f~ l _ 1 y~p- .10 11 .i ~ i r~*7 t K4 r~.~ 3~.~ x ~ mat C SY, A"N ,2P 1 r Yy.. ~ , 14 % Z 1 Jf v,'. tY. ~ia"r~tNT>~Y'^ r~ >w tv k'~ x ~ S} ~W"f~n~a ~ri i4 44 Zrl `$1~' 8 rq, ~ 4y mh c ~ ,^';t~$ 4 ti u~ v 1 , t A s ~ N c xt jcy~~ ~W1r CIS e w7 ~"iFC~ a~0e"~` ~ ~ ~If rya a s ~ 500 Strawberry Lane r Y ~ m t an_`4 Slope Categories `;zF a 1i, ~FA3{y3 Percent Slope, categorized 0- 15 ue `~i/r+,jr~.., rlkv arv 33'n s - ;k~# r'~ tytr~n 16-25 izi 1^{der ~k>'>rt+~rt kdl7s '3:/r `t"y rir "Tbiy rd-. 26-30 hillside lands) 31-35 (hillside lands) r~gyr s > 35 (severe constraints) Deed Restrictions Draft The following is a "draft" list of deed restrictions based upon input the applicants,and: from various neighbors in the Strawberry Lane Neighborhood. In addition, the draft restrictions include the restrictions recently applied to the City ofAshland's property (by the City of Ashland) on the corner of Strawberry Lane and Westwood Street. At the time of Final Plan, a final version will be completed by an Attorney, and will be submitted with all recording documents. All the property described herein (Exhibit A) held and shall be held, occupied and improved, subject to the following protective restrictions which are attached and agreed upon for the purpose of enhancing and protecting value, desirability and attractiveness of said land. These restrictions shall run with the land and remain in full force and shall be binding on the owner or owners of any equity or title therein. Property Standards: 1) Dwelling: No building, structure or improvement shall be constructed, erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than single family dwellings designed for occupancy by not more than one family, together with appurtenant outbuildings and garages. Said outbuildings and garages shall conform generally in architectural design and exterior appearance to the dwelling house to which they are appurtenant and may be, but need not be attached to said dwelling. No building or structure shall be constructed, erected or permitted on any portion of said lot until complete building plans, in accordance with the building code of the City of Ashland, have been approved in writing by the City. 2) Dwelling Placement: The placement of buildings shall be within the established building envelopes noted on the Subdivision's Site Plan. 3) Outbuildings: Except for accessory residential units authorized and approved in accordance with the provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Sections 18.16.030 J. and 18.108.040, no shed, garage, basement, trailer, camper, mobile home, motor home, or other outbuildings with unfinished exterior walls, shall at any time be used, temporarily or permanently, as a residence. Nor shall any structure of a temporary character be used, temporarily or permanently, as a residence. No temporary building, shall at any time be used, temporarily or permanently, for storage of vehicles, mechanical equipment, firewood or for other storage items. 4) Autos: No unlicensed autos shall be visible on lots or permitted to be parked on the street(s) and or driveways. Recreational vehicles shall be no less than 30 feet from neighboring lot lines. Recreational vehicles shall not be parked in driveways for more than 14 consecutive days. No logging equipment, semi-trucks, house trailer (as distinguished from camping trailer) or any other heavy equipment of any kind shall be 148 stored or allowed to remain upon any lot. There shall be no repairs or vehicles outside of a garage or outbuilding. 5) Cleanup: No rubbish shall be stored or allowed to accumulate on the lot. Each lot's adjoining road rights-of-way shall be kept free of weeds and trash and shall be kept under reasonable cultivation and care by the respective owners of such real property. All rubbish and trash shall be regularly removed of and disposed of properly. 6) Revegetation: Prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy Permit, each lot owner shall re-plant all cut and fill disturbances. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. 7) Pets: A pet's owener shall be responsible for any damage or injuries caused by such pet. In accordance with the Ashland Municipal Code (9.16.070 Dogs-Noise), it shall be unlawful for any person to keep within the City of Ashland, any dog which by long continued barking disturbs or annoys another person within the City. The number and kind of pets shall be as permitted by City of Ashland ordinances. 8) Outdoor Lighting: No continuously lit unshielded lamp or light of any kind is permitted. A security light, or lights, mounted on a building is permitted so long as it has a shade or shield that prevents direct illumination of any adjoining residential properties. 9) Fire Sprinkler System: Each home constructed upon a lot shall contain a residential fire sprinkler system reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior to a Final Certificate of Occupancy Permit. 10) Fire Prevention and Control Plan: The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property in accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority. In accordance the Ashland Municipal Code (18.62.090 A.7.), the City of Ashland is the beneficiary of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan and shall annually inspect the properties for compliance. Desi¢n Standards: 1) Height of Buildings: Each home shall be designed in accordance with the Ashland Municipal Code (18.62.080 E.2.) except that no building shall exceed a maximum building height as determined by that lot's building height limit as described on the adopted site plan (cross sections). 2) House Colors: The color selection for each home shall be coordinated with the predominate colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the home and the natural environment. 149 RECEIVED 500 Strawberry Lane; Robert & Laura McLellan FEB 2 6 2008 FINDINGS OF FACT ADDENDUM AND CLARIFICATION: City of Ashl,=.nd Community Development Exception to Street Standards (Chapter 18.88) The proposal includes an exception request to the City's Street Standards based upon the applicable criteria of Section 18.88.050 F. which are as follows: An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements ofsection 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 1& 88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this Chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of this site. The subject property is both unique and unusual as it sits along the southwestern edge of the City's Limits and Urban Growth Boundary and has extreme slopes and limited infrastructure with little to no development planned for the area south of the property. Hitt Road originated as an old logging road and eventually the lower portion became the access road serving the Strawberry / Hitt Road water tower. The only vehicular users of Hitt Road beyond the gate is the Ashland Water Department needing to service the water tower. Hitt Road is also used by recreational hikers and mountain bikers. Up until a few years ago (2004), the road was un-improved, but was eventually improved as part of the Strawberry Meadows Subdivision. However, the street improvements only included paving, curbing and a curbside sidewalk and only up to the existing gate in order to minimize earth disturbance, excessive retaining walls, and tree loss. As such, it should be understood that the existing street improvements, from the gate to Strawberry Lane, also do not comply with current street standards. The street area along the applicants' property line beyond the proposed driveway of Lot #5 and beyond the gate has cut banks ranging in heights from 2' to 9'. Widening the street beyond the gate to accommodate City street standards, would cause the wall heights to increase by approximately 3' for a range of 5' to 12'. The finished result would be excessive retaining walls similar to the retaining walls recently installed at 360 Strawberry Lane. In addition, additional grading behind the walls would be necessary likely increasing tree loss, erosion and scarring. Overall, considering the area beyond the gate has very limited growth potential and that a very limited number of vehicles use the road beyond the gate and the only other users beyond the gate consist of hikers and mountain bikers, the widening of the road is unnecessary. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; Approximately four years ago, the applicants "gifted" an casement and constructed a "public" trail across the southern end of the property. Mr. McLellan was one of the originating founders of the Ashland Woodlands and Trail Association, an active group that builds, designs and attempts to purchase and acquire lands for the purpose of recreational trail use. The subject trail links Hitt Road to Birdsong Lane which is a short cul-de-sac street (new) that allows trail users to park their vehicles in this relatively flat area and walk up the trail and onto Hitt Road. The 150 RECEivED applicants contend the trail is a superior transportation facility and provides superior connectivity since the area beyond the gate is really only used by hikers and mountain bikers and ppyil* M08 sidewalk is counter to the needs of the road's users. City of P.shlnnd C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and Community Devdupment The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The applicants have specifically designed the subdivision with one less lot then permissible under Chapter 18.88 and placed the driveway for the furthest most southern building envelope to the point closest to the existing gate in order to minimize the site's disturbance and limit hillside development. D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The "Purpose and Intent" language of the Performance Standards Options Chapter (18.88.010) is as follows: The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option, for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact ofdevelopment on the natural environment and neighborhood. The applicants believe strongly the proposed subdivision meets the "purpose and intent" of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision. The applicants contend the application exemplifies the original intent of not only the Performance Standards Options Chapter, but also the Hillside Ordinance when these codes were being written, analyzed and adopted by the Ashland Planning Commission and City Council. The applicants have strived to submit an application that goes above and beyond the City's regulations and is also neighborhood considerate when compared to other developments in the neighborhood and along Ashland's hillsides. Specifically, the proposal includes: • Height Restriction: A self imposed height restriction for each lot. Permitted Height 35' / Proposed Avg. Height 28' or approximately 25% less then permissible under current zoning; • Reduced Density: Under the Performance Standards Options, a 6th lot could have been created, but the applicants decided only five developable lots would be applied for in order to minimize hillside disturbance and view impacts. • Deed Restrictions: The applicants have agreed to self-impose deed restrictions similar to the other deed restrictions adopted by adjacent developments, including the City of Ashland's recent Land Partition on the comer of Strawberry Lane and Westwood Drive. • Increased Setbacks: The setbacks within the RR-.S-P zone are 20' front, 5' side, 10' street side and 10' rear. As illustrated on the attached site plans, the setbacks easily meet, but in most cases significantly exceed the minimum setbacks. • Neighborhood Sensitivity: The applicants have adjusted the building envelopes to accommodate neighboring views. Specifically, Lot #1 has been modified to retain the views from the home at 490 Strawberry Lane (Darling residence). 151 nECENED • Tree Preservation: The applicants have designed the proposed building envelopes and , driveway locations in order to minimize tree disturbance. rtd 2 6 2008 Solar Access Envelope Clarification (Chapter 18.70.0501 City Of Ashland Community Development All of the lots meet the Solar Access Performance Standards listed under Chapter 18.70.050 A. and each lots north-south width easily accommodates a 21' tall building so that its shadow setback does not exceed 50% of the lot's north-south lot dimension. However, because the lots have been designed with building envelopes oriented towards the northern portion of the lots with an Elevation Height Limit as described above, the applicants are proposing to meet the performance provisions noted in Chapter 18.70.050 B. where a solar envelope extends beyond the northern property line, but not onto the northern properties building envelope (i.e. heated space). The performance standards solar envelope for each lot is as follows: Lot #1: The solar access envelope is not to extend beyond the width of the Strawberry Lane right-of-way. This is a standard solar provision as permitted under Chapter 18.70.020 D. Effects: Considering the solar access envelope is already "standard" and permitted to fall on rights-of-way. The applicants contend there is no loss of solar access. Lot #2: The solar access envelope is not to exceed 35' of horizontal distance which allows the solar shadow to extend to the southern edge of the building envelope on Lot # 1. Effects: Considering the solar envelope only falls on yard area and not on heated space, there is no net loss of solar access on heated space. Secondly, the large grouping of Oak trees between Lot #1 and Lot #2 already shadows the subject building envelope. Lastly, the area not already shadowed by the large grouping of Oak Trees, is beyond the 35' horizontal solar access envelope and could easily accommodate surface mounted solar panels. Lot #3: The solar access envelope shall not exceed 20' as the adjacent property (490 Strawberry Lane) is not part of the subdivision and standard solar shadow provisions apply. As such, the shadow produced on Lot #3 will not exceed what a 6' fence shadows along the shared property line. Effects: Standard solar access is being applied to Lot #3. The applicants contend there is no loss of solar access. Lot #4: The existing home on Lot #4 has a north producing shadow of approximately 31' with a north lot line of 55'. Effects: Considering the home on Lot #4 is pre-existing, the solar shadow is easy to determine. In this case, the actual shadow falls 31' to the north from the house (Noon, December 2151). The actual proposed north property line is 55' from the house or 24' further than the actual shadow. As such, the applicants contend there is no loss of solar access. Lot #5: The north slope on Lot #5 is approximately 17% with a proposed solar access envelope not to exceed 82' of horizontal distance. This would allow a solar shadow to extend to the southern edge of the existing house on Lot #4. 152 Effects: Considering the solar envelope only falls on yard area and not on heated space, there is no net loss of solar access. In addition, the large grouping of trees between Lot #4 and Lot #5 already shadows the existing home. Nevertheless, under this provision, the maximum height limit at the lots most northern building envelope line would be approximately 22' with an overall height maximum of 26'. Obviously the Planning Commission could propose to expand or shift the proposed building envelope further to the south in order to limit the shadowing on Lot #4, but that would cause the home to further creep up the hill, making it even more visible. As planned, the shadow does not extend on heated space and simultaneously mitigates hillside impacts. Lot #6: Not applicable as no structures are proposed for Lot #6 and is designated as common open space. Pedestrian Trail: The applicants believe the portion of trail that extends through the applicant's property (from Birdsong Lane to Hitt Road) is already recorded as a public easement. Regardless, at the time of Final Map, the applicants will verify and will commit to its public designation across their property. Sign in Favor of Future Local Improvement District (LIM If it is determined by the Ashland City Council that additional street improvements along Hitt Road are warranted for the area south of Lot #5, the applicants would agree to sign an agreement for a future LID prior to Final Plat. RECEIVED F E © 2 6 2008 City of AShlnnd Community Development 153 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION 500 STRAWBERRY LANE ASHLAND, OREGON October 12, 2007 Project No. U264-01.01 Prepared for: Robert & Laura McLellan 500 Strawberry Lane Ashland, Oregon 97520 706 Jefferson Avenue Ashland, OR 97520-3207 '<T Ph: (541) 482-6680 A M R H E I N ASSOCIATES, Inc. ~Vv'J LY"^%'~'V'J °V~:7 i E CICC~~Cli NL~i!~ F. V,.✓;LV~~~%LV~I 154 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Proposed Lot Partition 500 Strawberry Lane Ashland, Oregon The engineering material and data contained in this Geotechnical Engineering Report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer is affixed below. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been prepared in conformance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or intended. Amrhein Associates, Inc. *av z Briana M. Wright Mark J. Amr in, P.E. Staff Geologist President / Senior Engineer D PROffff~ IN ff ~ I6 83P EGON y! . 18 . ~a 9~ I A N~a~ RENEWAL DATE: 12/31/D7 >t Geo-inlrD,100107 155 it Amrhein Associates, Inc. Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 5 Table of Contents 1 SUMMARY 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3 SITE CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Surface Conditions 2 3.2 Subsurface Conditions 3 3.3 Seismic Considerations 4 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 4.1 Suitability and Stability of Proposed Lots 4 4.2 Site Preparation 4 4.3 Structural Fill 5 4.4 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes 5 4.5 Stacked Block Walls 6 4.6 Backfilled Retaining Walls 7 4.7 Erosion Control Measures 8 4.7.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures 8 5 INSPECTION SCHEDULE 9 Figures Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 - Stacked Block Wall Details Figure 4 - Erosion Control Details Figure 5 - Down Slope Drain Details Appendices Appendix A - Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs cco-lnlro,=107 156 ill Amrhein Associates, Inc. Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 1.0 SUMMARY The proposed lot subdivision is located at 500 Strawberry Lane, (Map 39-1 E-08AC, TL 201) in Ashland, Oregon. We understand the project will consist of the subdivision of the 4.62 acre lot into seven new lots, which includes the existing house on a lot and a lot for the common, open space on the steepest part of the property. The proposed partition and general site grading is feasible with respect to the stability of the subsurface and slope conditions at the site. A brief summary of the project's geotechnical considerations is presented below. The site was a moderately steep to steep lot bordered by Hitt Road to the east, Strawberry Lane to the north and private property to the west and a portion of the north. The terrain north of the existing home was partially landscaped and contained scattered boulders of granite. The terrain to the south of the existing house was heavily wooded with oak and some pine trees. The subsurface conditions encountered generally consisted of a layer of loose, light tan, silty, fine to medium sand, with some roots (topsoil) ranging in depth from 1.4 feet to 1.7 feet. Underlying the topsoil, our test pits revealed medium dense, light red tan and red brown, silty, fine to medium sand (weathered, decomposed granite) that displayed an increase in density with depth. These sands are derived from the weathering of diorite and granodiorite; the bedrock that underlies this area. Site grading should include stripping of the topsoil and any loose decomposed granite soils before placement of any structural fill across the site. The site should be graded with cut and fill slopes that do not exceed a 2H : 1V (horizontal:vertical) angle. Stacked block walls may be used to face cut faces up to 4 feet in height. Higher stacked block walls facing fill slopes may be constructed using geogrid reinforcement. Structural retaining walls may also be incorporated into the design of the houses to assist in maintaining the site's stability. As the silty, site soils are moisture sensitive, site work in the presence of water or during wet weather would disturb the competent soils. The contractor should avoid disturbance of these soils and limit traffic across the prepared subgrade areas during wet weather. This summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the full text of this report. The project description, site conditions and detailed design recommendations are presented in the text of this report. The scope of work was completed within the constraints of the site and in accordance with our proposal. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Robert and Laura McLellan, and their agents, for specific application for this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. Goo ReaoO.I p0507 1 Amrhein Associates, Inc. 157 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed lot subdivision is located at 500 Strawberry Lane, (Map 39-1 E-08AC, TL 201) in Ashland, Oregon. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We understand the project will consist of the subdivision of the 4.62 acre lot into seven new lots. The subdivision includes a lot for the existing house plus an additional lot for open space on the steepest part of the property. We also understand that the majority of the driveways for the newly created lots will be accessed from Hitt Road and the northern most lots will be accessed from Strawberry Lane. The existing gate on Hitt Road, that prevents automobile traffic to the City's water tank, will be relocated approximately 300 feet up the road to accommodate driveways for the two proposed lots south of the existing house. In the event of any changes in the nature, or location of the proposed site development and driveways , the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to reflect those changes. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site conditions were evaluated on September 24, 2007. The subsurface conditions were determined by the excavation of five test pits in order to observe soil material types and consistency. The surface and subsurface conditions are described below. The location of the test pits are indicated on the Site and exploration Plan, Figure 2. A description of the exploration procedures and detailed interpretive log is provided in Appendix A. 3.1 Surface Conditions The site was a moderately steep to steep lot with sparse weeds, grass and many scattered bushes, oak and pine trees. The lot contained an existing home with a driveway that connected to Strawberry Lane. The property was bordered by Hitt Road to the east and Strawberry Lane to the north and private property bordered the lot to the west and a portion of the north. The terrain north of the existing home was partially landscaped and contained scattered boulders of granite. The terrain to the south of the existing house was heavily wooded with oak and some pine trees. In addition, there were approximately 10 foot high, steeply sloping cuts on the,western side of Hitt Road, most likely created during the construction of the road. In general, the majority of the site drained to the north, with some drainage trending to the northwest and northeast as the site was situated on a gentle ridge line. F E B 8 2008 GeaRep 1.10050] 2 Amrhein Associates, Inc. 158 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No; U264-01.01 3.2 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions encountered in our test pits generally consisted of a layer of loose, light tan, silty, fine to medium sand with roots (topsoil) ranging in depth from 1.4 feet to 1.7 feet with an average depth on the order of 1.5 feet. Underlying the topsoil, our test pits revealed medium dense, silty, fine to medium sand with some roots that was interpreted as native, weathered, decomposed granite. Test pits TP-1, TIP-2 and TP-5 displayed some gravels and cobbles of angular pieces of granitic rock within the medium dense zone. The medium dense soils were red brown and light red tan in color and were encountered to the bottom of the test pits in test pits TIP-3 and TP-4. In test pits TIP-1, TP-2 and TP-5, the medium dense soils ranged in depth from 3.2 feet to 5.5 feet with an average depth on the order of 4.0 feet. Below the medium dense soils in test pits TP-1 and TP-2, and TP-5 we observed dense and medium dense to dense, native, weathered decomposed granite to the bottom of the test pits. In general, the area is underlain by the Ashland intrusive pluton composed primarily of diorite and granodiorite, commonly referred to as granite or bedrock. The parent rock decomposes very slowly creating three general zones. The three zones are weathered granitic soil, decomposed granite, and granodiorite bedrock. The upper layer is weathered granitic soil, which is generally a red-brown color. The decomposed granite typically appears to be fresh bedrock, but can be ripped by heavy equipment and breaks down to a fine to medium or fine to coarse sandy soil with some silt. The decomposed granite can be red-brown, mottled red-brown and gray (swirled), and generally turning gray with depth. Occasionally, boulders of hard granite can occur in the decomposed granite that cannot be ripped by conventional equipment. The granodiorite bedrock is very hard and typically is characterized by its inability to be ripped by conventional, earth-moving equipment and requires chiseling or blasting to be excavated. No expression of groundwater or subsurface seepage was seen in the test pits at the site during our evaluation in September 2007. However, some perched zones with limited volumes of water may be encountered randomly in the upper soil stratums, and especially atop the dense, decomposed granite, during the winter and spring months. Later into the summer, these perched zones will become less frequent or dry up all together. We also understand that a spring is located above the site. It should be noted that the level of groundwater may fluctuate due to variations in rainfall, season, site utilization and other factors. The subsurface conditions should be confirmed during construction by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with the construction inspection schedule described in Section 5.0. Geo-RexMIC0507 3 AmrheinAssociates, Inc. 159 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland . Project No: U264-01.01 3.3 Seismic and Other Hazard Considerations Shallow earthquakes can result in a rupture or deformation of the earth's surface, otherwise known as a fault. The U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) identifies Quaternary faults as faults recognized at the surface and which have moved in the past 1,600,000 years (Quaternary epoch). The nearest Quaternary fault identified by the USGS is the Sky Lakes fault zone, located along the Jackson County-Klamath County border. In addition, numerous Cascadia Subduction faults are located off the Oregon coast. No other geologically recent surface faulting has been identified or was observed on or near by the project site. The site soils are not considered to be prone to liquefaction or subsidence due to the density of the site soils and the upper loose soils are not saturated. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Suitability and Stability of Proposed Lots The proposed subdivision and the site grading is considered feasible with respect to the stability of the subsurface and slope conditions at the site. The southern most proposed lot on the property was the steepest and is not being considered for building and will, instead, be preserved as a common, open space. The proposed subdivision and site grading is considered feasible due to the fact that competent bearing soils are near surface and no slope instability was observed or identified. Geologically, no active or potentially active faults are in the area and the site soils are not prone to liquefaction due to their density and lack of saturation. In addition, there is no risk of subsidence due to the geologic formation of granitic bedrock and density of the soils and the site is not at risk from a tsunami due the distance from the ocean and its high elevation. 4.2 Site Preparation The areas to receive structural fill should be stripped of all topsoil and loose, weathered granitic soil. If during the stripping process, an area is required to be over-excavated to reach at least medium dense decomposed granite soils, the area should be backfilled with "structural fill" as described subsequently. We recommend that the subgrade be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of structural fill. The site soils are silty and therefore are prone to disturbance in wet site conditions. The contractor should minimize traffic across prepared soil subgrade areas. Goo Repol 1W0 7 4 Amrhein Associates, Inc. 160 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 4.3 Structural Fill The site soils can be used for "structural fill" purposes. The decomposed granitic soils are silty and should be considered moisture sensitive. It will most effectively be used during the dry summer months when the water content may be carefully controlled. All fill placed on the site should be placed in accordance with the recommendations for structural fill. All surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Individual lifts should be compacted such that a density of at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTKD 1557 or AASHTO T 180) is achieved. We recommend that a representative of the geotechnical engineer be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as grading progresses. The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the soil particle size gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight, when measured against the minus No. 4 sieve fraction, cannot be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition when the moisture content is about 2 percent above optimum. If needed, the use of clean, granular soil would expedite wet weather construction. In all cases, site soils or soil imported to the site to be used for structural fill should have a maximum particle size on the order of 8 inches and be free of organics and other deleterious material. If inclement weather occurs during grading, the upper wetted portion of the subgrade may need to be scarified and dried prior to further earthwork. If it is not practical to dry the wet, silty soils, it may be more expedient to remove the wet materials and replace, them with dry soil. 4.4 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be designed for a maximum inclination of 2H:1V, however some localized areas of 1-1/2H:1V slopes may be used to achieve the necessary grades. The maximum fill slope length should not exceed 20 feet in vertical height. The maximum cut slope should not exceed 15 feet in vertical height. Permanent fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The surface of the fill slope should be compacted to the same 90 cew Repon.100507 5 Amrhein Associates, Inc. 161 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 percent density (ASTM:D 1557) as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by overbuilding the embankment and then cutting it back to its compacted core or compacting the surface of the fill as it is constructed. Fill placed on slopes should be keyed and benched in as it is being placed. This can be accomplished by starting at the bottom of the slope cutting material horizontally from the slope to create a level bench. The material can be most effectively compacted on the level bench. As additional material is placed on the bench, the equipment should cut out the next bench into the slope, stair-stepping up the slope. The bottom key should be a horizontal cut at least 6 feet in width. Each horizontal bench should be cut at least 4 feet into the native soil. All slopes should be covered with topsoil or wood mulch to protect the soil surface from rainfall. All slopes steeper than 3H: 1V should also be covered with erosion control matting installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The top of all slopes greater than 8 feet in vertical height should be protected from runoff by diversion berms or swales. In addition, if a slope is greater than 12 feet in height, an intermediate drainage bench of at least 3 feet in width should be graded into the slope. 4.5 Stacked Block Walls Stacked block walls may be used as landscaping walls to face stable cut slopes. Stacked block walls should be constructed no greater than 4 feet in height for blocks weighing at least 75 pounds each. For lighter blocks that weigh on the order of 60 pounds each, the maximum wall height should be 3 feet. If more than one wall is to be used for greater heights, each wall must be set back at least 4 feet horizontally from the top of the lower wall. Details for stacked, block wall construction are shown on Figure 3, Stacked Block Wall Details. The bottom course of each block wall should be founded on at least medium dense native or fill soil and set into a 6-inch deep "key". The wall should be constructed with a batter no steeper than 6V:1 H or each course of block is set back'/4-inch (pin setting will determine this). A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe should be installed behind the first block course and be fully embedded in washed rock or pea gravel. The drain line should discharge into the storm drainage system or other suitable discharge point. As additional block courses are being placed, free-draining rock (washed or crushed) should be placed behind the wall to provide for drainage and prevent soil migration through the wall. The top 12- to 18-inches of the wall may be backfilled with native or topsoil for vegetation and prevent direct communication of surface water on the terrace into the rock backfill. Higher stacked block walls may be constructed to face fill slopes where reinforcing grid is installed as part of wall construction and structural fill placement..-The reinforcing grid reo-Repon.100507 6 _Amrhein Associates, Inc. 162 = Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: 0264-01.01 must be attached to the wall facing as an integral part of the wall. The grid must extend into the structural fill being placed behind the wall. Reinforcing grid length and vertical spacing should be designed by an engineer for the particular wall system to be used and the specific conditions at the wall's location. 4.6 Backfilled Retaining Walls Backfilled retaining walls are categorized by the condition of restraint at the top of the wall at the time of backfilling. Retaining walls where the top of the walls are free to move laterally or rotate to at least 0.1 percent of the wall height during backfilling may be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If the walls are structurally restrained for lateral movements at the top of the wall at the time of backfilling, we recommend that they be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 60 pcf. These values assume that the walls are supporting the slope above the proposed house and no buildup of hydrostatic water pressure behind the walls. A value for the allowable passive earth resistance of 300 pcf may be assumed for each foot of penetration below the ground surface, neglecting the first foot. An allowable wall base friction value of 0.40 is recommended. This assumes that the concrete makes intimate contact with the soil, crushed rock or bedrock. All backfill placed behind the retaining walls or around foundation units should be placed in accordance with our recommendations for structural fill. The above lateral earth pressures, are based upon granular backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. To minimize lateral earth pressure and prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures, the wall backfill should consist of free-draining, granular material with drainage provisions as discussed in the Drainage Considerations section presented below. Ideally all backfill behind the retaining walls should be free-draining, granular soil, however at a minimum; the thickness of the granular drainage should be at least 12-inches against the wall. The backfill should be compacted to between 88 to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTUD 1557 or AASHTO T 180). Additional compaction adjacent to the wall will increase the lateral pressure while lesser degree of compaction could permit post construction settlements. If silty soils are used as backfill behind the wall, far greater lateral pressures can be expected to act on the wall. It is difficult to evaluate what lateral earth pressures will actually be imposed on the retaining wall due to the lower permeability silty backfill. The density of the soils, as well as the moisture content plays a significant role. If much of the soil material is loose, the soil will readily absorb and become a saturated mass, even further increasing wall pressures. Also, the fines can plug the footing drain itself that may allow full hydrostatic pressures to develop. The soil pressure and water pressure are additive and can approximately triple the total lateral pressure against the wall. Geo-Repon.100507 7 Amrhein Associates, Inc. 163 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 4.7 Erosion Control Measures Erosion control measures should be implemented to limit and control the erosion as a result of the proposed development. The erosion and sedimentation process is a natural process whereby particles of soil are loosened from the soil and vegetation matrix and carried down by water. Construction and land disturbance can increase the rate of erosion above natural background levels by several hundred percent. Good erosion control practices during construction can significantly reduce the erosion process during and after construction. However even with the best erosion control practices, disturbed areas will produce more sediment than naturally vegetated, undisturbed areas. Typically the rate of erosion is highest during construction and improves significantly after the permanent erosion control measures are installed and vegetation becomes established. Over time with the establishment and maturing of vegetation and proper maintenance of the erosion control features, the rate of erosion can stabilize to near natural conditions. 4.7.1 Temporary Erosion Control. Measures The following measures should be implemented during construction in order to best limit the rate of erosion from the site. The measures should be installed down slope from any construction activity or where the site is accessed from a public street. Some erosion control measure details are shown on Figure 4, Erosion Control Details and Figure 5, Down Slope Drain Details. Surface water will flow from towards Strawberry Lane, Hitt Road and onto the private property to the west. The following are some measures that should be implemented. T-1) Minimize the disturbed area. The natural topsoil and root mat offer the best protection from erosion. T-2) Install fabric sediment fences downslope of the disturbed areas to slow the velocity of water runoff and contain sediment. The sediment fences should traverse the slope along a line of equal elevation. Additional support can be provided to the sediment fences with straw bales at each fence post. The fences should allow for the slow release of water through the fabric. T-3) Place a crushed rock pad at the site entrances to allow for parking of vehicles and inhibit the tracking of soil onto the City streets. Vehicle access onto unprotected soil areas should be limited. T-4) Shield the exposed soil stockpiles and slopes from rainfall impact and hold soil particles in place. This should be done by protecting exposed or disturbed soils prior to rain by means of a complete layer of straw,, erosion control matting, or plastic sheeting. Geo.Repon.100507 g Amrhein Associates, Inc. 164 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 T-5) During the excavation and prior to any rainfall, corrugated pipes should be placed at the low points in the excavation to drain any collected water down slope. This will prevent overwhelming the sediment fences at points of concentrated water flow. The entrance of the pipes should be placed in an area of ponding water and the entrance lifted above the ground surface to drain off water that has had an opportunity to slow its velocity and drop out sandy sediment. 5.0 INSPECTION SCHEDULE The integrity of the site development and site grading depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. It is recommended that a representative of the geotechnical engineer observe the construction at key times to determine the adequacy of construction as it progresses. It also allows the engineer to observe variations in the site and subsurface conditions, and provide additional geotechnical recommendations to minimize delays as the project develops. The geotechnical engineer will be required by the City to verify that these items were observed and completed in general conformance with the plans and specifications. It should be made the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineer with at least 24 hours notice that each of the following items is ready to be observed. The key items are as follows: • Temporary Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the start of site preparation and other earthwork, erosion control measures must be installed and observed by the engineer. • Subgrade Preparation - When the topsoil and loose soil has been removed and structural fill is ready to be placed. • Structural Fill Placement - During placement of structural fill, a representative number of in-place density tests should be performed to verify the density and adequacy of the structural fill. • Stacked Block Walls - The subgrade for the bottom course of rocks or blocks should be observed. In addition the placement of the drainage material behind the rockeries and walls should also be observed. • Retaining Wall Backfilling - Prior to beginning of retaining wall backfill so that the drainage system can be verified. The acceptability of the drainage material should also be verified. A representative number of density tests should also be conducted during the backfill placement. G"-Repm1OD507 g AmrheinAssociates, Inc. 165 5 R~ ll ~!'71'4C1 ^l Al k f t V t T; f t ~~'i'` t hla A 1 x -6~r~~~') a 9~ {r~'' 'S9ij Al r: ' r ry ~ n M . Y', 'F ~ W I la: (r7 tl a l ¢w ~ t 6 tlZ`, "'V.a F pr i I p mu C~~~~~jjryMtP~i fr Z ~ r'~ [[et r+Y z'i 'L . i } s~7W -c r,• ArN 77 I<`ta+,5~_'4 ' ~ 'Sf' C,tt ~1i3'' r~~'~ t t~~'~ ♦5 ' * ' r , "fr c7J %n w S. x t. y 4 ' / ~/a^,~sf>, a t L' Ail r r vC]/}r1 t9 "`anjN y;l sZZ` "']r°7}*} W' r._ aL`1 J A dStil ~y ;1« 2y L. r it ASHLAND r J~ C1 M ' z " r } t~ ~I ~ x trlglyf~~' ~j~1 : ~`~~g al"b a . ¢i ;•Itl V 11 `~~'a I ri 4 ' e :t~,{4 #al lr, Piroject Site ' 'n - ~r•S~iFrfZ Yyift I*IYr~r~ Ga, r _ s"~ A A fr Mc,r S~+' iN^•tt Q~ o~' r V~r ~rd eA .q aR"i. r rk j {etc, r 14 fYt''µ t i y. "Rr ~.tt afZ ° Y~ F §-b 1, p t ~ } <~li ,jA fiti ~n.W:it. ~ tt~ if • L y I M A,~j1 tlsY'y' i•" ~a~ I!~ f ~ ~ y r Aerial photo obtained from Google Earth DATE 10/12/07 Robert & Laura McLellan 500 Strawberry Lone FIGURE A M R H E I N DWN M JA Ashland, Oregon ASSOCIATES, Inc. DES VICINITY MAP 1 Project ly QQ U264-641 - ~ RO 7A?+•.~O~R1 / i ttTP-1 It J a aS al=-t a t.. a I TP 2 f I a 17 t a n a TP 3 I t t o ez, a ra+'~ a~ t a< A \ Not IIP rt of e t M P.,rdp sed a ' sting Hous lon ,5 j t t at 1 1 r x ~ w. ~tii; r t I TP-4 ' e ~ TP 5: I E: , I I \ Legend TP-1 Test pit number and approximate location iT l I f.' I 1 0 50 100 r +rvF 9 Y I ; % I III ~I Scale in Feet ~I~III~~~I~' •k Site plan provided by I IIII III + YA \ David Fitch and Mark Knox DATE 10/12/07 Robert & Laura McLellon AMRHEIN ~A 500 Strawberry Lane FIGURE OWN Ashland, Oregon ASSOCIATES, Inc. DES n >'w Project `v SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN G U264-o,O W c E c i o v P o i ~ Co N E P E ° E ^ a n r T c L 3 L ° o u -v e o oe °t Soo Eo _ 8 o m n V Oi 0 o E o_o 6 E `s oo nNO g V L C p _ D CO ° y O O 0➢~ O V O„ L_O O ryN Nj CL~ ° O O O CV a••i t7 L OU-x °y~ L 4y LL L_ O OVV O V Qn r 2 d0 O_ -62 ° O OV'O N 3 tam ; ° DO° NY 2C, _ C a uTE _ ~ Yr =m S n _ ~'Y 5 9 W _ _ " n.a ho y°~ °vD n - `c o• o - do ~ NnL `o°. QJ rrr aEo. a v_° iT o-v t , a<< ~J o+ J °¢'oorn v.c uoL 5o DO.. co u °a °oo p N Q Q vi m c V u V V O C n a va V 00 ^ J O C h EN o°°c Y°m w V E o o`u DAY u° ° Po -d N L c y Q] 0 00 ?`c o 00 ~e `oec o ov co Q 3 zs uEo m' m m5~-~- a`o. o`5t Nu as a`o' yO R U w o W U Q U) c E s V_ OL E.v s m cr ~ c V - V O ^ 6 C O V O. f] d Y V O~ O ~ 1 o,Y ¢ o E Y ~ ¢ a O ~ ~ O O V N _j fD Q 3 O O f°! ~ U O ~ O Y "O N O ~n O u I m o b_ C o ° a `m ; Z m C t~ V U N ''1 ~ Z N O T _ ¢ 3 w 0 0 o a` In 1 r E o 5 LJJ v~ w0 LWL of ~Y< °i c Z L a U ~mo ~ O Q ( r O t - ~t a r' wu %F Z 168. Filter fabric Attach filter fabric material supported 3 places per post by wire mesh if necessary 1 = c', Anchor trench 1 91 to 121 - I co Bury bottom of } c.1 fabric in 9" to 12" deep trench 6' Max. -j 2" by 2" wood stake or metal T stoke FILTER FABRIC SILT FENCE oad ~b\~G 6" - 12" Coarse Rock aP D~ ~D. so. D OD D:. D oD 2j%o. O.D a b 00 ~D a D o DO ~ D ~ DDD~a D a cOa p. D ROCKED ACCESS DRIVE DATE 10/12/07 Robert & Loura McLellan AMRHEIN MJA SDO Strawberry Lane FIGURE OWN Ashland, Oregon / ASSOCIATES, Inc. DES 4 Project No. EROSION CONTROL DETAILS U264-01.01 109 Silt fence Berm t protect steep slope Down slope pipe inlet Elevate end of pipe i 4 / f Set.;ing Fond to 10 feet in diame maid Corrugated down slope pipe Discharge at bottom of slope Note: Install down slope pipe at low point of silt fence. Drainage should not be allowed down the steep slope uncontrolled. DATE 10/12/07 Robert & Laura McLellan AMRHEIN 50 Strawberry Lone FIGURE ,r. OWN rwdA Ashland, Oregon ASSOCIATES, Inc. DES 5 i, 4 7 Project No. DOWN SLOPE DRAIN DETAILS U264-01.01 Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The field exploration program conducted for this study consisted of five test pits. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan. The locations of the explorations were obtained in the field by measuring with a distance wheel from the existing property lines. TEST PITS The test pits were excavated with a track-hoe on September 24, 2007, by JIM Construction under subcontract to our firm. The test pits were observed and logged by Briana Wright, Staff Geologist. The test pit logs are based upon the soils observed in the field and the field logs of the test pits. The relative soil densities indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during the excavations. Visual classification of the soils was done in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A legend of the terms used for the soil descriptions is provided at the end of the exploration logs. FINES CONTENT ANALYSIS The fines content analysis indicates the percentage of the soil particles are silt or clay in a particular sample. Washing of the soil sample through a No. U.S. No. 200 sieve was performed on a representative sample in general accordance with ASTM:D 422. The results of the fines content determination for the sample was used in classification of the soil, and are presented on the exploration log. Test Pit TP-1 DEPTH (feet) - SOILS DESCRIPTION 0.0 -1.7 Loose, dry, light tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with roots and very fine roots (SM) - Topsoil 1.7 - 5.5 Medium dense, damp, light red tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with some cobbles (SM) - Native, weathered, decomposed granite - Angular cobbles of granite - Fines Content = 10.4% i i 5.5-6.0 Dense, damp, light red tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with trace cobbles (SM) - Native, weathered, decomposed granite No seepage ' No caving - - - 171 1 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 Test Pit TP-2 11 DEPTH (feet) - SOILS DESCRIPTION - - - - _...-----.------._.._.-------_-_----------__.._I 0.0 - 1.7 Loose, dry, light tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with roots and very fine roots (SM) - Topsoil 1.7-3.2 Medium dense, light red tan, damp, silty, fine to medium SAND with some gravels and cobbles (SM) - Native, weathered, i decomposed granite - Angular gravels and cobbles of granite 3.2-3.5 I Dense, light red tan, damp, silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) - Native, weathered, decomposed granite No seepage No caving - - -----I Test Pit TP-3 j_DEPTH (feet) SOILS DESCRIPTION_ 0.0-1.4 I Loose, dry, light tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with roots and very fine roots (SM) - Topsoil 1.4-5.5 I Medium dense, damp, light red tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with roots (SM) - Native, weathered, decomposed granite - Roots to 2.3 feet - Becoming dense with depth No seepage I No caving I i 1722 Amrhein Associates, Inc. Robert & Laura McLellan October 12, 2007 500 Strawberry Lane Partition, Ashland Project No: U264-01.01 Test Pit TP-4 DEPTH (feet) SOILS DESCRIPTION 0.0-1.5 Loose, damp, light tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with roots (SM) - Topsoil - Roots to 1.5 feet I i L- - - - - - - 1.5-4.0 Medium dense, moist, red brown, silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) I ! - Native, weathered, decomposed granite - Original rock fabric evident C i No seepage No caving I Test Pit TP-5 i DEPTH (feet) SOILS DESCRIPTION 0.0-1.4 Loose, dry, light tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with thin roots (SM) - Topsoil 1.4 - 3.4 , Medium dense, damp, red brown, silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) - Native, weathered, decomposed granite - - - 3.4-4.6 1 Medium dense to dense, damp, red brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with some gravels and cobbles (SM) - Native, weathered, decomposed granite - Gravels and cobbles of angular granite I i - . T N -.o-see---pag --e-- - ~ j No caving D 173 3 Amrhein Associates, Inc. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) LEGEND PRIMARY USCS GENERAL SOIL DESCRIPTIONS DIVISIONS SYMBOL GW Well graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with less than 5% silt or clay GP Poorly graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with less than 5% silt or clay GRAVEL _ GW-GM Well graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with 5% to 15_% fine #4 - 3/4" GW-GC Well graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with 5% to 15% clay coarse 3/4" - 3" GP-GM _ ___Poorly graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with 5% to 15% silt GP-GC Poorly graded GRAVEL or sandy GRAVEL mixtures with 5% to 15% clay GM Silty GRAVEL or silty, sandy GRAVEL mixtures with greater than 15% silt GC Clayey GRAVEL or clayey, sandy GRAVEL with greater than 15% clay SW Well graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with less than 5% silt or clay SP Poorly graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with less than 5% silt or clay SAND SW-SM Well graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with 5% to 15% silt fine #200-#40 SW-SC Well graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with 5% to 15% clay medium #40-#10 _ _SP_SM Poorly graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with 5%to, 15% silt coarse #10 - #4 SP-SC Poorly graded SAND or gravelly SAND mixtures with 5% to 15% clay SM Silty SAND or silty, gravelly SAND mixtures with greater than 15% silt SC Clayey SAND or clayey. gravelly SAND mixtures with greater than 15% clay SILT ML -Silt with no to low plasticity MH T Silt with medium to high plasticity CLAY CL Clay with low plasticity CH Clay with medium to high plasticity OL Organic silt with low plasticity ORGANIC OH_____Organic clay with high plasticity-- PT Peat or predominantly organic material Oversize Material: Cobbles are 3" to 12" diameter, Boulders are +12" diameter Description Modifiers: Major modifiers: clayey, silty, sandy, gravelly -greater than 15% listed lower to higher percentages Minor modifiers: with some clay, silt, sand, or gravel - 5% to 15% with trace clay, silt, sand, or gravel - less than 5% - SAND & GRAVEL DENSITY SILT 8 CLAY CONSISTENCY I I SPT N-value SPT N-value Pocket Term blows/foot Term blows/foot Penetrometer tons/s ft. Very loose 0-4 Very soft <2 0 - 0.25 Loose 4-10 Soft 2-4 0.25-0.5 Medium dense 10 - 30 Medium stiff 4-8 0.5 - 1 Dense 30-50 Stiff 8-15 1-2 Very dense >50 Very Stiff 15 - 30 2-4 Hard >30 >4 MOISTURE CONTENT PLASITICITY Dry: No discernable water present, dusty, Non-Plastic A thread cannot be rolled at any dry to the touch moisture content Damp: Enough moisture to darken appearance, Low A thread can be barely rolled no moisture adheres to hand Moist: "Optimum" water content, Medium The easily rolled thread cannot be re-rolled sample squeezes tight and maintains shape after reaching the plastic limit Visible free water, Much time is needed to reach the plastic limit Wet could not be recompacted as structural fill High and the thread can be re-rolled several times / AMRHEIN ASSOCIATES, Inc. 174 SURVEYNOTES I I TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LEGEND I rare 'n n .T LO Armor A ax < .'r< rs x co r Tx a'~ r5-ITn rrR M *'r ~~n 500S7RAWDERRYLANE ! Y / D prm o [+v a ASHLAND, OREGON 'T I N`. v LOtV N2 C , 1 1 1~ 1 $ / /Tx ( T 'A/ ( LY fi flll/<1Y. N'(l'NIA' 1 a~a,vle eorvLmuz,µFeenni::-r:a rcxvrinn eYixe r.n.> / / / / 1t 1 / / 0 v:xua, v. x.<°D.v mrr<x vawa isrxRr'mi.m>~rnrnnarxxrxxn'Imva<nxxnraensv¢es NON ]YJL9r5J'Vt)LR OI'SL'CL'ILLl$ ert xY non ,.a %O ~ua}/°r o .x v.l.-mr..l•rRGlolu,el n~-,al,.r4rNr4 Rxr'i.R"•i','n'Irj+.nr/.ir*.r.Y. rn,Ir NTAI>.rnm).. / I / ! ~ v WNSNIY JO SOL7N, RAFGF I FAST. W.M. , .r f/1. .r/ 'mm/f x`N f: r' - N' ! \ ! IIRn J t w w R \ x\ I I /1Ir~~ I I w a - ne. o• ro' w' ,o' +to / ! / 1 1 / / _ u ` .R ixmxr s.w w o. r N,rr,r coNrola ,nrt,,,LL oN, RODL'RT & LAURA McLLLLAN > L 1'9 G>Y ALYILL [ONIOVR WILRVLL . iM0 IIC! SW Syn xT~>l+r< / ! ! 1pp I I, W a ~i I4t' ru j xuluv_tiu u: (a¢ xuRVrv Nort al Amnrrn. u.. pwv>,'n / / f~ /II _ _ xn u w+ rxt s~~Flw.em.:rxr..lu w 'vvul.em vl/oxmm~ / ! ! /1n I ;avnun,r.rv ~ 1 rvt t 11 1,1 1' t 1 ~ 1 1 . 1 1 1. I/ l J 1 1 1 1 I I 1 / / / / 1~" I ~ •4.r,oxw.nunv15uNx 11 1 1}Illl 1\\ 111 \ \1~1~ ~T'-4~-~/ I ! / I I I I I 1 I I / / / / \ ~ nln,kll.nV rt)nM1Rl. rve 1 1 \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ 11 1 ~"I l I I 1 / ~ I ~ 1 I I I J / / ~ , / \ _ / / / / ~ 1 - 5~/TARY.ti4TFYNF 11 \ \ 11 l+ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1+ 1+ I I t~1 r 1 I/ I 1 1 1 I I I / I I I , / / -'SL /vb' - 1 \ ~ ~ ;.;x~;~,~„rnx~ \1 1 1\\\ I I i ( / I I I I l I 1 1 ( I I / / / I I II I r / / / ! / / / I ® Yn T.vf>rvngen.R. xs>n cr. \ \ 1 \ \ \ It \ \ \ \ \ 1 + + 1 1 1 I ~~l . It \1 \ \ \ \ \ It \ \ \ 1 11j1 + 1 1 + 1 1 1 } \ 1 + I 1 1 + \ 1 r ~ , - ~ _ rm •49w elm... ...rrs (~tt..w aJ / / / tuw aam• uunno c,wxvuanuwa11 1\ 1 1\ \ 1 \ 1 1 11 11 1 1 1+ 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 P .~~~r ire G`i' R ~ L ' 1 \ 0 rrsnxx >xnvsma.F li1\ 1 \l, \\1 111 11 1111 \ 1 1 1 \ \ }1 1 + \~\TTI / \b \ \ u„w III }1111 1 j~111}1+IIIIY+11111\111111\%\\;\\\\'~\\\ \\1\ \\\\l4, \ `\~t\\I\ \1~\\1\\\\\t 1 \a.1\. .,I• \ ~ \\;,,.o~/I U 4PS.,xn~xaa+' II ~~IIIIII~1 I+"gl + X11 I~11\ 111\\ \ \ \\\\1C \ \ \ ~~1-•' ~ P 1 \ \ \ 1 xxl,>, I. / I~L, I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I+I I } I1 +111\111 1 1\11 }\1 O a,.\\\\ \ \ \ \ 1\ 1~1%" , ,(N III IIi II II 11 + 1111 \ \ \y~`\\\\\\\ I I I► I I I I I I I I 1 I + I I i I P r)o~ yE~~P. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1\ \ Y1C'? : "t a,Nr,,,,.r I I I I + P A b\- 9.'M \ \ \ \ \ , ~ \ ,vTC \ \ \A''E ~ a) ~ l~ 1 eo IIII III I I , IIII\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ Ill I f I I I /III 1 III IIIII I I 1 + 1 1 1 \ \ "P' \ \ ~ \ 5\\ ~ \ ~ ,4r,,,4-._ Lx« a ® t~.~, <rRnn1 ! ! 1( 1 11 11 I / 1 I I J I I I I IIIII \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 1 \ \ Y ~ 1 \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ ~ ~ I ~ ° m 9 „[4nnn„l).,wwxrla,4T,~,.,>. / ///l/,/l/ //,//1/ 1/ 1 I 1/1 1/ 1I 1 1 1 !I I I I I I /I I I I I I II I1 I II/I 1 i I 1i 1 ~ V ~ l -I I I 1I 11 1 I 1 I1 1 1/ ~II I~ 1} I l ~ 1\ \ L1 I "\~R~\\t t Y\?(\ \ ~ \ \ \ ,,~~tr `q ~ I ~l s\ \ 1'. " ~ 1 1 I I LRy9 \ yr~\\ m w\ 1~1~1t11\\\1 , > \ \'`y z3 /l/(l l , l /l 1 n g ~.•~II I\ }IIIII \ \ s~a.[\c~+ \.'J~ I\` 11 % nnurn[z 1 RI 1 .i m'+Y 1111 I \ 1 1.®\ r N' cuy~roy w PANlYTLO.v ITA TNU.f 61441 1 I t I 1 I / S \I \ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \I~•1~\ \ \ \ \ \ 1 w ror m ~,a o~ \ / / / / / / / / ! 1 1 I Q I I I I I I I 1 t i l l . / / / ~a IIII I I I I1lI/ tt\1 I ehXl\\\ \111+ I a„Rxo J / / l// +/f°f q} I I I I I I I I I 3'; ~ 1 I I ' J 111 +11+ I ( II I I(I \ ro Ij'.ti dut \ \ ` 1111+ CTV~{r E ^~1in 7s / / / I ll nrwi ! ~ f~c~ I ~ I ( 1 I III I .r h.~ t\ } 1 1 I ~ 1 + ✓iY97 ii~3.[y ~ ~ / / /0I1I~II~S ~P~L /.1a 11 \ 1 f 1~{ It~, I' 1111111/ \\11 I_: ,:.a~..,. j~' 1 I I I I ! / /,////fj I / / , l I ) IV III I 1 1 Iay~j I 1 1~'q°J''I l ,.1 .f > , 1 W MMR I, c~ f ! I I 1r, y 1 J 1 I ft4 I I t I1 / IIII I I fa i I I / J I aJ I 1 it Y 1J//,1I I / I I I 111 I ! /1 / M~ y/ I 1/l11 d44R/11j1J1I~Il,l l 1.fI{l~Jl///! } 04 fly/ \ \ /i/ i~ --.of kr J-//'//N/ A/ kX1 / ! !/t / / / / / ~°a+;/~i > /-~i i i - l i I / / / Y// % / ///may,' ✓ / ! i \ \ \ I WIND OUURRIVEYDR / / / - - "'•r / d _ / oo \ 1 / / / /i i - - "+'9P+• i~ / / ' m,1Frr .;y / ~r 6 • Ir" m' 1 1 I /!ii /j/ / SURVEYED BY: Ao i i i °o ➢ ! ,11).17'Qa7k I blRl ~ll.~ lr`/>yx - (P ~.I'1 1 1 1 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC P.O. BOx 459 i i i i _n9o~ ! - - / ♦ i Gal.4 1 I I 1 l ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 - r,~ I (541) 402-500s; L.C lI I \ a ow- DATE: JANUARY 12. IOOB /A )n ' / -iYl' / I / J / h \J _f F 1)tr 1 \ \ \ PROJECT NO. 441_07 4x5wr''s Yav ft. 39 If 0 AC, Tax Lot .bl POLARIS LAND SURVEYING 175 I I \ I ~ t1., ' ~ ~ I ' 1 ) r - r I j r r I / I' i' I ~ r r i~ n- ~ vn \ 1 I 1 II !I,1 t l 1' t I .\lll\ IIII 1 ~`\'1I ' I I ~ i 1 ! 1- I I ! I I .`rr I I ro o- 1 ,(y f i r - ~ \ {I it 1 ` tl \ ' 1 1- l\'. t +i \ ,11: t I { I)j I li \ - / I S~ q~fL zo~:` tit. / l 1. `.1 I `I-~ `l I i I r t 1 I , ,~'r I r r ! f ~ l I _r. 1- .''U~ 1. 4' I i\1, ` ' 1''. t l i t t l l I I.' ! Isoo 11{ / i I I _ I l\ 4 '1, - \ , 1 1 1`t I f 11\'\ t \ 1. t ?rs sr autvmc I 1 1 ~ \ _ ,r, ~f f\`tt \ I 1 t' 11 I \~'I ~iil 11ti\ `511 \',1' ~T 3_ t I \ t\~ I •,~~.r 1 L T \ 11\ I l I i, i1 \ \I r` ~ fo kril~y 'f .A'45n 25 0-1 ILI , ~u, ,1sa eca \ 't'- 1. , t\; `i.t ~lt.\; \.l ,j \`tt l~ r - , 1c' if,~ -~^t N a 6~eTa~•'~ @F~f s'~~{{ (~y~n~ v ~'i~ °.e.s ^ee. I I'1' , 11 Ill SLOT rj 'i\_ r. .I \ ,1' i~ \ +pT ill_F,. i~6,7, j Kw'l~)` ,l v6'~'(;!?`1'11/ W N "1 lil t`I ! 1 I ! II`1 ~\1 •`IO°J. 1`. l°' 51k", I II 1 a]iIitI , >5y1L 3 ~v I iSN-1r Y {r I ~ \1 \\I i'` so \ S \ t'.IA5i26h \ ~Q N~ r -'r I7 11 rf li i'I~ 1/ ! I II ill ~iI I I ) I \5' l 11 I` l l - \ `1\ l'\ FFR-]3GN ~i '(r r r);, I { r• .I I , I i ~ ill I I r I. I~•1. l\;'f \t1 ail , N ~ , \ ~ ~ r l r ~I' Iri +r L1 'I I I II• Ir I 41 ' I ~ yI r I ' , ~ f \r 1( \~1 ,f\1 l III'!; I t +'I 11 rl'' I.Ii 1~~, ,ilr {41 I III 1 II Ij 4 11\1~1 1~~,1 1 t 41„x., I i •5\ , 1' ~ \ / ~ I r. / t' „r )rr! Ir 1 r-I j 1 II ~ 1 j ~ 1 f''\\ i\ ` , x 1 I FC I Ir ~ ~ ~1/ e'uos Lv.s f `~'I 1 ' r ~ --I A Jr l,, , ' !!.r !•1 ;1 Ili \i i I .1 , Y` - tt T/ \ r, \ \ e.•e { I ~ I ! ' i ' t . ~ y\r r { ~ " j;r I oN ,i t. \ i` _ _ .e r. ~ ,J i e /,//.r+r'r,lll {,ir I.i! I 'I r~! r 1/ 1_. \ tI, ~\c ~f1~ f 0 _vC _ I ~ J Il, '-C g rl.~, Ii, +r I ,',r / l/; r/l; / ~r ' _ r~l 1a y~(43b t''I l '4 '1' ,?•`F~` \ , wv r fi, , - //r ~ ,Ir7 I ~Ir n, J/ ~ 1 ail }-,Lr. lfet ''.11 - 4\\\ \ \ CTI \ ~'l Lo uO: VAfti OF SYBDNiS'-0N D ^ j r r lrr , 1 J11 ri / r / r r In sF+A~r so r ce. u, V t I I I / p It , , I 1 l'~ 1 'Irl Y .54 ACa0 I r I II 1 I / o. ! i s ~ i ~ ( r ebpt!'~.' I \ 5 ( ! \ too / / ! i / /n I Nr r I II r . ~ ~ I ! r ~ ~/I~Ns - I i i ~ ! ~ I ~ 1 i \ V N{ or INCL. Fua r/'i r r /(i (l1 ( r { ~ +r ' 1 r L r + { I ' I 5 r f V / / rS i~r ~ //tl •i i 1; 1 tI i) r I C '/i 31 \ 'i• ~ .lj/ i { j ! ; II l ( I )l ~ l ,~I 1! 1 1{ T( ~ I 'I ~ ~~"''~I„j ve....r.,~t1u ~ 17 61r'{ I~1t I\i,~ Il.. •i I E~ _ I ~I. 1' 9 Jrr~'r,•;%/ I/l /11 it 4r` /r/ ~ I ~ ~'I) ilI ~ l fl ~1 t r ~ 1 i I ! ) l i I i ~ ~/~R~C 1~ ~11 (~l" /J _s.l` /!J /~j•i r~', I r /1 ,tt f. ~aa /i Jul i~~` { .ry.r l LT ~~9°'O-I I / / l!c, r/ r/1 uwcnre sere a ! r r/ i \,y i r i .50 A, e' II i ` . A/.r ! ii / \ r// \5, _ `i / ! t i I eslsnns / ><•L\_l~ _ l )J J ' '-'l ( r ' 3 ftESIDENU /r l ~ / / • / r r / z.zs F5 z4z3 I t eon.. ee4.vTS ~ 1 I I d 1 ~ ' ~ C / r / r/ r r ~ //I ` ! f.. ~ ' r~ / / eN re~o~e 1 ~ r r I - 1 Y Ii i/' ; ~ ,•'/i /i~l 1 ii~'n~ i l ~~i { ~'l 1.'.,1 l I 1 r.o-vi r1r/~_,p 1 ~i _ I xAZm1 ''cause '..r) r - ~ ~ ~ sao•,L J11/ t l i^n j r~ i I ( ~1e✓.~~.`F'^l~ 6 v / - ' [ ~ - Y / r ~ °7`FSf' ~ i , l to , r ~ , r eto e \ / \ ^IJ znzs LOTO¢ i LOTO3 rc zacs s. ~ ! if i .-c"am" • i ~ rr' / ' ^J r f` 7 \°o'o 'X. a 2429' MAX HT. zJ's j /g r rf g ~yfs a'' J r 1 F. [not 4:1¢21 I; 3p°~ •l) nt EXISTING RE5I17)ENCE r 5, SECTION B - , _ C I foAO/ry -vr n r li(r ` ',1~ i 'y % l / y' t LOTO SCALE: 1"= 60' r ! i r" I I r r I / , ! , / _ \i/ as / _oT ,4o SITE PLAN - CONCEPTUAL oa,m~ y r 1 -NOTES: m iS 24W 2 SCALE: 1'= 60' oKo . ° LoT p O ( W zazc Q D i V ALL HOMES EXCEPT EXIETINO ARE GO NGEPT'JAL 0 < 426'MA.e HT zN\0 GEILWOS ARE 5HOINN AT 9'-O" HT. y aIH 3° LOiO i ROOFS ARE SHOWN AT 5:12 PITCH Q N E? SIGHT LINES SHOWN ARE c-0" FROM FIN ISHEG oi' 429'MAX eT.I zs>a ` FLOOR, U.N.O. t' 9 6 `~9~~(pp■~~®~ i1a~ ' FFG- a23' p ~L EXISTING RESID ENGE l 2310 THE IDEAS INCLUDED HEREIN ARE BASED UPON F=e-z4°s 2402 AX aT. EXISTING CONDITIONS PROVIDED F OTHERS, IO z3r,o AND YYHILE EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MACE AT FEB t T 9 ')ja ACCURACY, ALL PLANE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SHEET: J t/ NOT O'JARANTEED, CltyotASinland 5ECTI0N A a.E=313' Field O 2 m .a. e Office ❑ Coutt Al of 1 n9tap u.vG '_+953' I LEGEND I / , L - - ® • PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE OR CLEANOUT 1• CONNECTION TO CONNECTION TO PROPOSED CURB INLET Il . r ` M STORM ORNN F% STORM DRAIN - ® PROPOSED CATCH BASIN ® PROPOSED DITCH INLET - r r L~Qg I _ - o PROPOSED/ PROPOSED STORM MAIN EXISTING STORM MAIN DRAINAGE DIRECTION PRIVATE ONSITE STORM DETENTION WSYSTEM ITH TO BE ENGINEERED 8 CONSTRUCTED WITH HOME SITE/BUILDING CONSfRUCT1ON DETENTION LOT STORM / 7D hqy DETENnoN srsrEri - \ % I ~ /G LOT I//' ~jJj7 ExisrwcTDRw II , 1 ~o LOT Y I \ PWATELOTST04LM / DETENTION SYSTEM DETENTION 1 / , CONNECf10N TO / I II If r I I' ` _ ~ l; sir' , ' E% SPOIIM DRAM , / ot, I LOT 4 \ / \ SO SERVI%Ej- RNATE LOT STORM 11 JH=. - _ \ O ION SYSTEM 1 I~\ J NOT A PART ` 'OF THIS SUBDIVISION 1 1 1 CE TD OUTLET THRIJ FACE THRU FACE OF CURB ~ y m LOT 3 I' RUVATE LOT STORM I f ETExn \ \ \ \ \ \ I I ! ' J LOT DoNSYSTEM 6 ~ f LOTS l I I ' - = ~ ~ • ` ~ 1. ! ~ i ~ a ~I I PROPOSED / r SO SERVICE I \ \ \ I u GRAPHIC 'CALF.' 1 1 ~-~-rte TI I(T~h ll . rEeP, 11.d' 1SiL 1SJ11SlJ1i J1 co 'CRAW BY. aG OA IC: 0.5/O7 I RO. RENSION DATE BY e~ `g'1- It I1 C T I ~CHECM£0 BY uwN OA TC 05107 1 1 I S~~ai r CITY OF ASHLAND ,cr.~ ~ noax,n ENGINEERI\f. I OA FE. I I i' STRAWBERRY LANE PARTITION VA TE. U S U 1;. •I I I- I I I %1 coNNAL BA I I I I rrE ~ x~~ GRADING 8 DRAINAGE PLAN r.n. nox • VEnroRB, orsecnrv nosm 177 °.oam rn, it.ul ro>n-siren-P.~x rsAn no-:u:m j uns I I I ! G LEGEND I - EXISTING WATER MAIN R°HYDMNT / II IXISTING FIRE HYDRANT G 1 I 1 / PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT I Exls<_wATER_ LJL________--- I I - - _ _ EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE ORCLE1NOUi l E 5 NG FIRE HYD. AND METER o PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE OR CLEANOUT IT, 1 11 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MAIN 1 1 - - JN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAIN ELEC. yl~ Fk(S>• A \ \ PROPOSED POWER (PER CITY OF ASHLAND ELEG DEPT.) II 1 y// EXISTING POWER A li PROPOSED PROPOSED LOT I ELK SERVICE WATER SERVICE PRO~~~OSEDJ~ a,/ _ \ ~ \V ~UY~. IXISfiNG TURN- / ~ ~ AROUND 1 I 1 SS SERVICE PROPOSED I 1 SS SERVICE LOT 2 ION OF `ily \3 \ 1 1 PaOPOSED APPRoxIMATFCE OT 1 - WATER SERVICE RELOCATED AS JJ 1 _ ELOCAT® AT b \ V'/ 1 7 MSTING POWER It TRANSFORMER TO - PROPOSED BEREMOVED - ELEC. SERVICE 11 Ir L \ -I-t 11 \ ® - ~ I 1 1 I .A LASEMENI I MST. r Pvc To BE ABANDONED R I ~ ® i C ~ 1 . C` /f•/ / 1 j1 REPLACED FOR SERVICE TO LOT 3 LOT 4 j1 I PER CITY OF ASHLAND R M DEPT. Una J. ti ♦ ` / II STANDARDS EAS MENT li I NOTAPART ~E~w RELOCATEn~ \ 1 1 OF THIS SUBDIVISION SS SERVICE E 1 1 PROPOSED ~I - 1.1ee ^ 11 wnTEa setweE LOT-3 w°~ VICE - i 1 PROPOSED SS SERV. 1 1 1 1 TO LOT 3 PROPOSED LOT 6 11-~- ELEC. SERVICE OPEN SPACE LOT 5 1 It Itl i J PaoPOSED SS SERV. 1 i0 LOTS UPUTY 1 1 11. ( 1 iz ERSEMENT _PROP. PRIVATE SS SERVICES (2) FOR lOTi7a _ ( (b n -m Mm 1 11 E. 1]J.L 11J_L.LU .2 (CRAM BYDLG DATE: 05107 NO REN90N DALE I BY ~g T R U C p CHECKED BY.. NBx DAM. 05107 CITY OF ASHLAND E\GINEERING °A Fr` 1+ STRAWBERRY LANE PARTITION C ~ g DA M, - CONCEPTUAL l.r. DATE: UTILITY PLAN °MY1ONp r.o. nox Iaa . eleueoun ooecon v;,ol DA M: I yrL ~oE~wm 1`II. Isnll ]TA-53fifl i'n% (5J1) ].8-1108 17o 8 G ~ G/'Y --i 63 I I F' _ 1 I r. 1 FENGM I V I n j _ I 1 / ( rr se xaw RcnO-------- - 3x 1 ~t _ Q O S 0 CbNQP L r OPCN iPA6 I 1 \ I' ~ I 1 I.x i \ \ / 1 I I 1 BL1L VA ®I Y. i Z I I i Fool M/ l i ```v1 II ' Z (T Q I I l aii xa i, I m. b6~ '\`a , oydw L 11 I S 0 1 rr n1 01 \ M roCVnNr I I I 1 W a O 0 I I i , \ FeNCIw li 6 y rr~i c , i p 1 / RIOMA O I / - \ `II\~`\.` L al u s° xi I to I •I „ ~ ~ $ O I D 1 1 I / / j I zus ~ ~ mual0war Y', j~% r@ / % ' \ / ~r cor Px L 1 t i 1 ME mo cnoN \ \ a. / r ..4m. / T \ \ 1 y \ FnorernoN i \ 00 nECFR0iECn0N ,``\'P~ / 1 I CONCEP1Wl 1 ~ fCNOHJ \ -=i ` a, .Ixi 1 amain I ~ xaa vx i 1 FOOmmbr y J CwLmn Dob. T mz- Y _ / DWMF6y. \ E PrtORCnq . \ " 2NCIN0 NdroScob q 0do Y _ - - - :RE£iROiEC:~0:121M5 ,JV.FM r v.uvr.n ww'x ,rr _ r •a,w ~ rn.. r.,s t a~~rnw x x u m w,. „s r a...,rmr Y n , ns.,~., w F .~r,n_ r F r „ w n = i~ x ,...n..+x..r-.. o r x, .r a....wn. I. ,r rw r, W..r r ~Yplp ~o ~l-1 f w..r.,.. n r r+r r, „ nr M w F n e. r r, v_- « n n F v. R-_ n 0 .0 oo.,:ew°"ee. u.e., z.w.ww.. r d ,r. x r. ,r " rr .r ....n rr ....r-r-. r x Z ~ '0 We pr O ,PIL.RO,HCN«I M0,0 > o...m. „ H+ w.~ , .w. a..wxm. . , r ne a .r o....w,« r 1, »M .v .~u.v. „ , ti r,r. V s O 2 OM IIw YYIbPRlt01lwn CV.i. NaKpaWUprrlwmdtrY wwu+a. .r x „ w •rw ° F ~r r LY hQ A P[1n c IIVYi. r F r r r ,f Ox~bN .NMNni bYiaMmK F •rn n +w• R..,,,®• r n aw wr. o-nn a r.r ab,amFwOhapwa nbY•+s or a. ...m. e x 1, llm M.R rlwnbTnNa,a Ypd•i1~YYya Yxn NlW. F.a,lai prYYl VlgrynW Kp(IbNNRIC.blrr,tll Nr 4YbKa{.xYr~KCFY3l~xwsrlY ate. ,r r, .r • •a,. 1 w.a.. b x.1d wKINrIbrY W [s.a WIb. uLLb w'YwOragl c.he{tnLbKn.ParIM wYNbrx^F.!'4o.rw+InnbY„oaeNMwMR a.-.rar r „ r •wr r LEGEND rvot[: Febv0,Y 0.'L008 C. M~PyKavr•a ~rM,rNmJ. bRNOaa~P[b.N,l.a WtVn[N vrx arx n ,.r ; Aa Nb.[,Mrn FIMIMWaipm. p ayNaM.bflAMPx~IanPMtl4TaYhbmM04rb. CPYFbrY'YrYMKMY a••+w,~•• ~r F ~r ser rm P.[Mlu[ynlarMwwn lebbY .p.lb'bmry'1YYtlL.Y'iErTYOtlKM9tl Wx,MOry. WbYgap¢NIYK'YAII ,mOVtltlIK YMMWaWLmbpnW KIIF9nwb11101pW a,rb rWrKpNal'xX WYbabmaYnnaNi.Y~NNIb, a"'~~'v i. n „ xa • O' O .FPIfAtlMI a..a NN T. MadF..A .~.P~m.~. KN b ..a TREE R04QVALA t4D 10 r'en...m „ a . .ar ,r ~x.n c.wrr.eb, rM Pia.rn,n INRM G Ilwd W mMaRCMOnabwwrL. Ilrw, >1Lx..imbtlawavlrl.K.r....m....a.ae.oYrH iceY lwaa~.N0i1v 1 n ,r ..a.e E LbrYr1KYY.IImIrtl Mbp YrabYpe.r y,.,.,y rr n ver +r,. ~ F.T.~bYp~.wINUCWr~tl1.u(Jx..mvIVA1Y'W YIraYY-N lrll O. bYYr4u^BNgIb a.r..•v , r •.r.a ,n ,)M1JbbalTwNNYM1KrYtlnLY KaY Wwlb/awxn~•YnpbCaY,dNbe M,vor .e r, , ,w .ur ,I .na my,pµq Y,01x. 179 yRo-n.Lrs.~..a,.,+bw.rNw.Y.neemlb,mrNb+LUmr~nr. wxllwa..! ,r. r. MtYYYFWNaFPnIWM. WapOnlPanwrxM1npbxYF~ a.v r r n if r x,a,„N,a„FaP.~ba~,FL.~IK,a..PN~tl,F. r ~ City of Ashland Field F~ Office F~ COun 12 _.T I I , summ~cE ~ 1. "r -,."y , I`, I N , 8 ,1 i , 1 \ A y._.I U N h z ^ 1\ LOT6 I4 - i I ; ' voArne 1z i'1 i ` ` 1 , Crter+FAO I < O` i LOT i i 1 vm sF euEno+o EHVF10PE, i 1 / ' f q\`\ I •EAY O ___I I EY O 'OPENRPACE• LOT •1 \ \ y 4 ` \ I , ' 1 _ H w ' ' I , ''1 Runol o •i' O~ ' 1wACREa ' FF2 xlW I O rc FoDTPRwr/ ' T nC 1 . 1 1 \ ~1 W QD CE)FVPL { II N z (I ' I / i .dam •i~ \ . ` I 'I O O S maef LOwoeNVaorF w v I i ' / 1 1 , l ..y~C.•.ij T._ _.L.-. (q REENB I -i LOT 2 I ! //i , I i Y , (DRE910BKE.", ,mC BF 9URDWOENVEIOPE 1 ' 'y \ /1Tr / FFE7~ 1' I I ~~ITTi~^• 1 If li / 1 b /~'r ''I I `1~(1\ 1,; br'a 1 I 1 I I .I ILL' 1 i ( I ' LOT1 I I{!i' p I t mACRE F FFe xw¢ I ' vwsfsuema eNVeLare CONCEPTUN 1 , I C4lECeT: EUILDNO FOOrasrr I' / eM'~• w~'- ri s:' k,pE ,l• 9f' - l- - f,PPP~E ~'ni lR / I I COMCEfNW' i I ''?MHEOWE ' \ - - ~~T GHrRxryEN _ _ • _ I, I ENLONp' ffE nT I ! .9 \ ' ,f, ~r• _ - ,I'FOOTPRNI oF 0 I . O, ~tt I~I I ' ' ' I FfE 7dET 1 .1' • , / P.oFO..e,.nu,bR BFAb 2 D By. W 14, w - - 8---------- HALF N I it _ 6 u. ~ Z d m w NOTE: Z N ; O 9~p•Jrp N•nb mbrmlM NfwIPF~ ~ ,may s 0 Onw"•P •N nNM1. J N 5 6 U p O 44G ~~~EI OgLCCY~~~C February6,2000 SITE PLAN ~~a FEi3~ 1G ®u L-2 180 CIty Ot AShland Field ❑ Office ❑ COUn U Z I I I 1 - - - - - - - - - - t I N I 1 w ..nm.~r[.. \ L vet I 1 / < N u Lo N _ H 60, N I __I < Z I \ ~,q I .'1 .S ~ O I I ' 4 W W 1 aPEN SwcE j LOT5 OjI /1, - I I I W V O c LOT 4 < O y O WNCE Z O - 1 I / . [ r uk FgOTF11M I I ! W Q S IN, I LOT 3 to awws__ I 1 I 231 (flAE910BJCE', I I I 1 I / i I I Ifl almoE . 9 _ _gg___ ~F L0T1 li/ ,j \ / \ \ 'J J i c~ceoezno I I I-__- i. \ aj I I. yTror I ni \ ry`~ \ a 1 FWTPRW LOTZ I •I y •I l - ~ \ ryb ♦M~~\. ~M` %J / / I I Rension DoAa; \ \ - JJ I I CaNCEVIUN I I II 13ro I Dm~ By WMp ~~\•1 a L zas] _ / / am . S.I. 1'-30.0' R Firm Prwmom and Cwm Moms Eroslm c W Ndos r 1.RwM[NY abmn[xnXn 6'oftlmewnlrtWerpgrd[. 1. NUS«tlbr mO'arry[I[tMrwnrµ [NbMYW ^ _ M tl Ouw[ nevnM bM.lw IEar.rA ywr. Immtlpry rwNtltl.tll uw[ OYwbe ty [agn[M. O ].laNYw [M NUa[mq.vunlevlerMO[[ropn. Q[M EreYN eN4q [«Y M[[aYlb[n4nm uw[Wre,u W x INYW IY[M[MVptlwm tllM NVMmINYMnn 15%[kp.ln[m[MVNCAM mrkR f[Mbr, [ralukb pu .tlq~ 6 N J = {B■pl®'S 0 Y Y D NWYa. pWne[bbwn bnrA Jp[el Y[n N4b10 m[nu6[Lnn [ptl.onun }}~~JJ■■ L m W «rrumwWna6'MUry [4u[0v.. ].SweryYnlouv OM[n MUnl [neMryta NmrNU ~J w Z W a.YMFIN'M[rr[YUbn. gn4N[r NNUMVO[e, iWOnwnbrynow[gNUnlirrlptlmn Ntll brpbM [[®®}}``~n''[[~~■■{{ ~~EC tl d. ; O uN.Ymv mnb. a..a Meev..ne lu[. rnva.mmw YVAb aEnaw wren mk.v[A[eN O.mstss..e. ln INw.t ww..[wv6cvn 6.IMWer[nelr[[YnbrnNF ]V eleMwrry [rGpp16 [y VaM[w W « tzmmYnngw.[«[ve.. rwe wgA[e n.An.nklnm a]r~ew[nweww. za FEB 1 y 1U•!3 ..W.1 p N S ovw wAr. Tv1:Amn n.erm NFAw to e. N.asNOV«.vneumemq[n[N.e rwwn Wq[myuwrtl. nrN e V D uZi FNI ru[erY N[bn «mptlN an lcn 1 rkuM tlewtl um Fnnme m„bNwn.rFtllb er«v«tlq. Ctry OT Asnfand eNn v.«r m w enn. Field ❑ Office ❑ COUn FeMmry 6, 2008 FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PLAN / 181 EROSION CONTROL PLAN L-3 . I `Y' - 1, 1 I, r I I ^ I Ij9P I I II V ----------7( - Z wr•.r-.-. -'.J-I-------- V I N I ~ I i v R~RB % \ I' I Q LOT 5 r r ~ N f I .e r1 ' 1DAC1~ FFEx / __1I } - -"iCRryiMAVd-"' 4'b5 I Olam I p C O• q I mme 1 vq 1 I .Pw.a as F BULLOBIo fNVELME_ C~~_ Y) Z -5 0 \ \ oe O 'OYErv sPtGE' r `.I LONCEPi11N i I I BUIC Oj IAe LOT 4 RW PFx xae' I I W W V, TP Nr \ F O W I Ir I r 1 FOOL I 11 III V tp I. , I I r \ `M oa+cEytfuL 1`{{ < O N P / lI lrr \ BYIto } N O 4Oj TPMNT 111 I I N Z II I I ~ ~ „ ~ w g - ~(p)Tw BO 1" V \ z"C` ton I 1 (n vioae>i I. , r I / l .L f~~ r r i r ma eFici°DNa FUIiE1°eE 1 I i Irk, r✓~ 1/ I Y-' T.-._.-.-.-"~ 'tE~hBSmEnci. LOTY J O - I I~ aELM P i' , m/6BH i I IE)MES~CBE:E MBBF BUIIDIxo ENJElOP6 ' /I IV LOT 1 ~I p I Y~ / .E~', H~, I, FrEZEBr 1 1 mN]I! ~Ix', CMCEPM& ; ' I 'r mmneuanwo FNVELOPe I < I \;.,Iti fl>>kn PWIPRNT BP Ili Dm; CONLEPiWL' 1 ' PAOwErwiFM9 [nIF j i' ' i' VrflY511EOLW! zt ~t2. +f Iww sNpwW+Iw.Nr (pew Fooq~M IO a» I I ! ~e . n' a ~ Prpppwa,Pmr,Bw. i BffiI' ,W MY. YEibOi: - - D~ By: WMP .y (Pra atya^sm' NdP11MM _ _ _ - '1 II Scale I' 70'O' (PKwla Bw Trs PVpliBm ' T % A HALF - _A B>I~ 1 " - I NOTES: I. ,n z s W NV.w maw PasrammP WM 0 m F. o am'tn¢m olrMOinwq 4AatlrW O_ rNu b NPpwup. sw cM+ L.+b.efu.ww L■®~ $//1~~ ®pp~ m w a. Pq.arq ueaw.tlaigew.o napnriW ■■CC~ 1~- ~a.IH ~ W ~ O uNN. yprvhM uA. W M".a M LNRN NpuM. W Q N prppNa NaNil IF NiM• ( / J _..1 0 NFUmoH'In MyM.w - (Ilr'J (JV 0 FED m V N.bp. aauMa b/IM AM1w,ry vq C LL h a r4iN,p wYl[m.e.atlm N.I MrMpyd City of Hsnfand SM &,M La b.MhnN YWw mptl mlwrwavr. s, rmxe,babrmaron Wa'ser~eaWNM Meld ❑ Office ❑ Coun Lnd•NM'b.blM. PbrblNWluq Utt IObIWIYQ 2008 [aMU[tlan p10Mwrry ma rMUMnpv.V.. 182 GRADING PLAN L-4 ✓ ~ f ~ '7on4 20' v1A y: e:,>_ i ..•!7 L„`t' F m"`i' t.ii SO~ x"'90 RO(p~y ' ~ E ' mlW~L^ ~ to + ~.~v*~~~~1u~a w}Ii i. h T< g[4 tYlPi ,la ~+LT `',)FZ(I(T~ ~ E rvyti~~ nSERVATIONL"R' nr.. -.710!'fi ~7 . It CCC~~LL j,N ~I 7° •1+'.. E- ~ ~11)G 11 l6' Dp4 44 ACRES L6 J = z f (NOT PART OF ~n 106' Ono p I ✓ I ~36' Ono \ n 4~~= s N, w 2 ,a.~r.: d ~ ,C • E ' 'o t t m (E)ORNEWAY ttt I SECTION 50 BE I=4 REMOVE = `Y. I I I O2 c 2a .53 ACRES v 9 1 ~d : 3 _ L 54 ACREfibS (NOT IN LAG a 9 1 f dam mc1,ilr ..a' !1 f Y E 7 y1 t.. -N \ (E) DRIVEWAY ° 1a "3 \ SECTION TO AT _ ' f Tel S6• • y9. `~~j.~r~\\ .~c,Yl 4. 1 \ REMAIN )r 4 1.29 ACRES } fl, ~QR ' F < 1 e /~R lti (N) DRIVEWAY ENTRY a Al SIP O I~kU~l~ .53 ACRES p 1v I^a r' I ~I~ FmgrT~`r~v`X41 L 1DE PATH ITT ROAD °qW_ b A _ 20' W~ ~ PROJECT INFORMATION: t~ PROPERTY INFORMATION: • FIRE "i;x.,. II ROBERT 8 LAURA MC LELLAN TURNAROUND 500 STRAWBERRY IIWE 20'-# I I / \ AY 20' 391 EOaAC 201 DIINEW 1C 11 ~ (E) GATE TO BE ASHLAND, OREGON O RELOCATED ZONING: W RR-.5 i 6 .58 ACRES ` APPLICANT: UUR13ANDEVELOPMENT SERVICES. LLC 320 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 202 \ + ASHLAND OR 97520 ( TEL' 482.3334 LAND USE PLANNING URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 320 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 202 ASHLAND. OR 97520 35% SLOPE 73._5. I TEL: 482.3331 AREAS DRAFTING DESIGN: ` COMP. ARCHITECTURE DRAFTING 170 ASHLAND LOOP ROAD ASHLAND, OR 97520 I r \ / . TEL 48&5899 I I I \ \ SURVEYOR: POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC P.O. BOX 459 1 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 CIVIL ENGINEER: CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS I I P.O. BOX 1724 \I I U PUBLIC) 5 ME ~F7079SOREGON 97501 .59 ACRES RECEIVED • CITY WATER I I I~ MAY RESERVOIR T• M A r 2 4 LUOI PREAPPLICATION PLAN 119 = 60._01. III ~II I COIN,.,., ....opme:R n M ooC aCQ JO Wo 2V N _ O (A ? to Vf O O . o o w N o p n to O " O` V d d d - °c a a , .Lb'962 'M ..2b .29 .6B'S J 3 -i = ° En En n r n Q NU o Uo ~ N J J J In O r c o 0~' - • Q Z Q Y Y N'O C ON 3 3 3 E E t c a 9~~ n ° o - Y u u Y Y V V Z L E E E a a o ~ O J p ° O • P 1\ u u u ; o .o u° Q c•S w w w v • o o Cf- p O O O \ D T Y u ~S^ \ n n d D_' ; O y~ ~ 3 ; 3 t 'v ^ N~ z\ 1\ 0 0 0 C O Q T j G\ f E E E O ;i L) O E O O 0 q \ N y D ° D O x ~ In O N Q O • jypNN D U r • N aD N aD -t \ J Z 3 I .u N O ui 1% 1~ in in en to Z Q M m~~ •O A 4 i. Ill . ' I CQJU O • ~ m N 0 `;on O O O / Z O O L 1, b in V V W Y U U n O coo* C O p D O S S C C In ~N~41 W Z Q _J • • D O N m ¢4J3 Cap i • / m O Q11 / 3 e p h ~ n O v ^ .0 n O ` N h 3 ~pb Q K%= N O ! y a~ °cilr;pp f0 yes C OO a 33 'r° a~ ~~7: p~ O fee ~~.a ° at cj~ of yy $ D Z in 1~N2 o ° 3 00'91 w > j M 20312 LB's ..Ll oo i' J N - N N U IQ .m M .02~ - T T1 ~ in 0 .3.00.01.0 0 aQJU O m . n a ~ 3 IM N' ~ u aD po _ Ih r lV Q iy N W 3 O CD dA ..Aj p • m I Rb O O 'g ^^Q M O 0 ' n \ H : A n 'C N I 0 O N L M N 0022 YI 0- t6Wl Z w _ 'o _ M. - .fZZb £f• f2 b9-3-S IZ .86!21 I~^ J O .9-W f£ J- -3 -00 .01 .b9~ C h h JL'9fZ .(2/N39M~ls o nJ - I m ^ - 3Nd7 N % 3 NA 0 ~ h w pw~ °j ul N~ • ° m~ C~\ 0 n ~O n- 0 3 c o u 3k to 0 on ~?Y • gd o cis b r- c: 0 0-6 o- 0 OI V } ~ ° ° L o :1 l~ rN all ~ (D 9 - n . ► ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION ® Planning Department C I T Y o . n Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE # yZ00~ d0/ ~~2 -ASHLA D 54511-488 -5305 Fax541-488-6006 r DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ar1/NA- PIAJ to Q DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address SOU S?asnJA4t~u1 tA✓ Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E O $ A G Tax Lot(s) ZCJ ( Zoning Comp Plan Designation L o W > ✓n15: )2F5: ~1L APPLICANT R~SE¢r~ Name IZv~f¢T ° L,.. A-A McLf.IIAA) Phone S4/ 4~l - 7040 E-Mail f4Idi(..Jcaj.,j.t 4X4 Address rep City 6~. J Zip `,prza PROPERTY OWNER Name SA,,..A Ac 44n.rc- Phone E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Sts,;, A?TRctie D 9V*U.4-,k)4_ Title Name Phone E-Ma Address City _ Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail - Address City - Zip I hereby cedify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respells, true and correct. /understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. 1 further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fad furnishedjustifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findinas of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are property located on the ground. Failure in this reoardwdHesaltwtesHikelyiu.ao I the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be ~noVed at my expense. Ifl have any doubts, I am a vis ask competent professional advice and assistance. l/ Z y . ej A l' ant's Signatulv~_- Date As owner of the r ~tba vv in is re uest, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences tome as a property Z c~.do Propa y ell) Date fro be CoWeled b/ Citt Slab Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ .Z 9 4 9. ° Planning Action Type OVER S v ,>~ia .2 a 1,00s, AN,- n ~<~yn :.r 55 ~k ~`~b g~,t. lr ui~ ? a"Rd' a'y MSS Kim gq~ WA%A.r H.C +a Q !R _ F A< Job Address: 500 STRAWBERRY LN Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: cC q? Owner's Name: MC LELLAN R/LAURA A WRIGHT- O^ Phone: Prz N; State Lic No: F' Customer 04631 MC LELLAN R/LAURA A WRIGHT- City Lic No: Applicant: 500 STRAWBERRY LN R Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A- C; Sub-Contractor: A Phone: C'. Address: xT_, N?, Applied: 02/08/2008 O? T,.. Issued: 02/08/2008 Expires: 08/06/2008 R' Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391E08AC201 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Outline Plan 6-Lot subdivision & P & E Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: r<, , <NIECHANICF;L ' > ~ ~ 3 x s', t s r:' Y 2 ,rT a/,:8., ELECTRICAL f f _ "P s ' j1„ ..:STRUCTURAL .,PERMIT~FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Type l 2,969.00 CONDITIONS OF%APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-4885311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF 186 ASHLAND - e- ee: ee I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation (180 days). Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 . 2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 2,969.00 $ 2,969.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 2,969.00 Fees Paid: $ 2,969.00 Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800.735.2900 w .ashlandor.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 1 87 CITY OF ASHLAND ~xh~b~fs B'06 I 8L submifte4 17/os IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2008-00182, a request for ) REQUEST FOR Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the ) AN Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for the property located at 500 ) EXTENSION Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental ) OF THE TIME Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal ) LIMIT Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, ) ORS 227.178(1) and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. APPLICANTS: McLellan, Robert & Laura Applicants request a 30-day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1). Applicant Date Applicant Date City of ibit ASEXt F a, nm - o08 Exhitc t1 pz, Z0 &J~ PA # $I ®taffBL [Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."] City of Ashlar i - p Fanninn Exhibit lp Exhib # 01- 2609 Lot Coverage p PA 4 ON Staff states: Oatc~ ? Staf and a finding was made that the Performance Standards Options Chapter provi mes for more flexibility than is permissible under conventional zoning codes in order to reduce the impacts of development on the natural environment, and that this flexibility can be applied to look at lot coverage in terms of the subdivision site as a whole in order to protect natural features of the site while providing for the architectural creativity and innovation that the chapter seeks to encourage." While Chapter 18.88 provides for more flexibility, it is clear that lot coverage in terms of subdivision site is not allowed by this chapter. 18.88.100 states Developments exercising the Performance Standards option shall be required to meet all other applicable sections of the Land Use Development Ordinance except for minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth and setback requirements, and except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. The stated exceptions do not include lot coverage, nor is lot coverage mentioned anywhere else in the chapter. Exceptions to Street Standards under certain conditions are mentioned, but not lot coverage. The exceptions to Street Standards provide conditions that need to be met before the exception can be approved. Where are the conditions that need to be met before a lot coverage exception is granted? The word flexibility in Chapter 18.88.010, Performance Standards Options Purpose and Intent, does not mean you can allow unstated exceptions. The exceptions that are stated in this chapter provide the flexibility that is mentioned in the purpose of this chapter. If flexibility did mean you can allow unstated exceptions then how could ydu deny a request for a 4 or 5 story home, or any other unstated exception the applicant wants? If there are no stated conditions that have to be met for unstated exceptions, you would have to allow any request. Where is the hardship or natural features on these 3 lots in question that requires larger coverage? As a matter of fact, lot 1 is proposing a building envelop where the slopes are the steepest thus requiring deeper cuts and fills. The needed space for the 3 lots requiring more than 20% coverage can be taken from lot 4. Chapter 18.16.040 for this zoning district explicitly states the lot coverage for '/2 acre lots is twenty (20%) percent maximum. • Interpretation of the ordinances in Chapter 18.112.070 says when conditions imposed by a provision of this Title are less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other provision of this Title, the more restrictive conditions shall govern. Maintenance of minimum requirements in 18.112.020 states that lot area, yard, or open space cannot be used as the lot area, yard, or open space for another use. Consequently, you cannot use another lot area in the calculation of lot coverage for your lot. Allowing extra coverage concentrates the coverage in an area where it is least desirable since these lots are more visible to the surrounding neighborhood. This interpretation of lot coverage can lead to bad coverage results that are not equitable within the subdivision. The code does not state that lot coverage is expressed in terms of the subdivision site as a whole. The definition of coverage defines coverage for a lot or coverage for a site. It does not state that lot or site coverage is a percentage of the area of the lot or site. It says coverage is a percentage of the area of the lot or site. If you were to interpret that lot or site coverage is a percentage of the lot or site, then • The interpretation applies to all Subdivisions, Partitions, and Performance Standards Options since the definition is not in the Performance Standards and Options chapter. • The definition of maximum lot coverage in each district does not mean maximum lot coverage, but means maximum lot coverage or overall site coverage. • This interpretation of lot coverage can lead to bad coverage results that are not equitable within the subdivision, partition or Performance Standards Option subdivision. If you were to grant more than 20% lot coverage, the only reasonable option would be to grant 20% impervious surface and the remaining percentage to be pervious surfaces. This would have less impact on the neighborhood, and preserves the natural environment which is the stated purpose of Performance Standards Option. Allowing more than 20% impervious surface means the house could take up more than 201/6 of the lot coverage. Street Standards The issues I raised regarding a common driveway or an alley between Strawberry Lane and the upper portion of Hitt Road were never addressed. The alley is a much better option for the neighborhood. It provides: • Alternate access to homes on Hitt Road when conditions make it difficult to navigate the steep portion of Hitt Road. The current driveway for 500 Strawberry could be extended to Hitt Road. It has a much gentler slope. • It provides for more interesting designs where garages are not visible to the street as stated in Street Standards Handbook. • It reduces traffic on an already substandard street. • It makes the subdivision more neighborly as stated in the Street Standards Handbook by integrating the subdivision into the neighborhood with a path for pedestrians and bicyclists, allowing travelers to choose from many routes that match their particular skills. • This option provides superior transportation facilities and connectivity, which is a requirement to Exception to Street Standards in 18.88.050. Thus this proposal is not equal or superior to Street Standards. Trees on the lower end of Hitt Road by the sidewalk should be added as specified in the Street Standards Handbook. There are 2 smaller Oak trees on Strawberry that have a nice canopy that are marked to be removed because of the location of the curb cut. It doesn't make sense to remove these until a prospective buyer decides where they want the driveway. There is mature Oak tree on Strawberry that will not be removed. Because the mistletoe hasn't been removed, the health of this tree is in jeopardy. If there is not a requirement to take care of street trees, I respectfully request that you consider preventative maintenance requirements for street trees. The Tree Commission Review recommends the applicant shall address the mistletoe in the Oak trees. Building Envelop & Lot Coverage A larger building envelope for each of the lots is more desirable. It provides for more flexibility in designing an architecturally interesting home and preserving the natural features. A larger envelop is not an exception to the Performance Standards Option. The homes would still have to adhere to the ordinances requirements. It isn't the natural features of the land, but the currently stated envelopes, conceptual designs, and size of the lots that drive the need for larger lot coverage for lots 1 and 2. In the case of lot 3, the size and shape of the lot impacts the lot coverage. The envelope for lot 1 places the house on the steepest portion of the lot. This requires either the house to appear to reside on Hitt Road, or the front of the house is looking at the neighbor's side and back yard- What would normally be a front yard becomes a driveway parallel to Strawberry Lane. This is an unnatural location for a home for this lot on the steepest portion of the lot. As set forth in 18.88.090 Performance Standards Guidelines, there should be minimum landscaping & design standard for lot 1 since the driveway is a major visible feature on Strawberry Lane. The proposed envelopes restrict the prospective buyers' options, and do not reduce the impact of the development on the natural environment and neighborhood as stated in the Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. Instead they impact the ability to design an architecturally interesting home. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Public Hearing to Increase Utility Rates Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Admini4Be~ne es E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Estimated T ime: 45 minutes Question: Will the Council approve increases to the Water, Wastewater, Transportation and Storm Water utility rates effective August 1, 2008? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council consider this information provided and adjust rates as discussed. Background: Increases are recommended because operational costs in all areas continue to rise faster than our revenue streams. This is especially true for any costs relating to fuel, energy and products that are reliant on those industries for production such as construction materials. A contributing factor is reduced sales from weather fluctuations. A reduction in sales for the Electric Fund saves in the amount of wholesale power to be purchased but reduced water sales translates into less revenue to cover fixed costs like treatment plant maintenance, debt service and overhead. The end result is, and has been, a reduction in reserves needed to meet operational commitments. Comparison of Operational Ending Fund Balances with Total Trend Line -All Utilities $10,000,000 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL $8,000,000 TO $6,000,000 TOTAI $4,000,000 L $2,000,000 ' I I I T T T T T T T $(2,000,000) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2010 Actual Actual Actual Actual Target Estimate Budget Projected O Electric Fund =Telecom =Water Fund =Wastewater Fund =Street-Transportation =Street-Stormwater =TOTAL -Linear(TOTAL) The above chart demonstrates that the TOTAL of all operating fund balances has reduced from nearly $8 million to a projected $5 million or less in six years. This is a significant trend for enterprises with Pagel of5 061708 Utility Rates.CC.doc 1AW, CITY OF ASHLAND total operating budgets of $29 million, of which, over half of the corresponding revenues are directly impacted by weather changes. The following table compares FY 2009 budget estimates for revenue, expenses and ending fund balance for operations in each of the utilities. Capital project costs and financing are not represented in this table except for any potential new debt service impacts. FY 2008-2009 Budget Comparison Transportation Storm Water Water Wastewater Operational Revenue: Charges for Service' $ 1,235,000 $ 535,000 $ 4,300,000 $ 2,715,000 Taxes & Intergovernmental 1,157,000 - 1,691,000 Miscellaneous 135,000 35,000 145,000 105,000 Total $ 2,527,000 $ 570,000 $ 4,445,000 $ 4,511,000 Operational Expense: Personal Services $ 574,631 $ 250,691 $ 1,671,022 $ 921,229 Materials & Services 1,360,400 298,130 2,474,604 2,293,571 Existing Debt Service 539,019 1,782,949 New Debt Service 300,000 100,000 240,000 - Other 275,000 28,000 25,000 101,500 Contingency 62,000 31,000 133,000 135,000 Total $ 2,572,031 $ 707,821 $ 5,082,645 $ 5,234,249 Budgeted Shortfall $ (45,031) $ (137,821) $ (637&45 $ 723 249 Operational Ending Fund Balance $ 1,311,317 $ (858,337) $ 550,673 $ 1,776,644 Target 248,000 62,000 889,000 1,777,457 Difference $ 1,063,317 $ 920337 $ 338,327 $ 813 Budgeted Increase 3.0% 5.0% 5.0% 3.0% Revenue Impact $ 37,000 $ 26,800 $ 215,000 $ 81,500 ' Charges for services projections include budgeted rate increase. Proposed Increase 3.0% 10.0% 2%-8% 3.0% Revenue Impact $ 37,000 $ 53,600 $ 323,000 $ 81,500 Points to gamer from the above table: a. Charges for services do not fully fund operations in any of the four activities even though they are calculated with the budgeted rate increases and anticipated growth in sales. b. Transportation relies on gas tax and franchise revenue to balance. c. Wastewater's Food & Beverage tax revenue falls short of annual debt service. d. Only Transportation shows an ending fund balance (EFB) that meets target. e. Storm Water's negative EFB offsets Transportation's in the Street Fund. f. Unused Contingency can offset or significantly reduce budgeted shortfalls. The budget was built with anticipated increases to meet 2009 needs and recognizing increasing industry costs and debt service to pay for needed infrastructure repair and borrowing. Staff recommends higher rates in Storm Water and Water to address the anticipated shortfalls. Page 2 of 5 061708 Utility Rates.CC.doc ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Street Fund - Transportation and Storm Water Utilities The Street Fund is a Special Revenue fund because of the state revenue sharing resource and it accounts for two systems, Transportation Utility and the Storm Water Utility. The FY 2008 annual budget is approximately $5.9 million including $2.7 million in capital expenditures for Street, Storm Water and Local Improvement District (LID) projects. Adopted for FY 2009 is a budget of $7.1 million with $3.3 million in capital expenditures. The long-term budget indicates the need to borrow $3.7 million for capital improvements in the next year and $2.7 million before 2014 (excluding LID financing). The Capital Improvement Program identifies $17.5 million in transportation and $2.6 Storm Water projects from FY 2008 through FY 2014. As of June 30, 2007, the governmental statements showed $42.1 million in Improvements other than buildings with $21.8 million or 52% in accumulated depreciation. Street and storm water improvements are a portion of this total. There are no significant amounts of debt outstanding at this time for street or storm water improvements. The primary revenue sources are Transportation and Storm water Utility fees, State Revenue Sharing (gasoline tax), franchise fees, assessments and miscellaneous grants and intergovernmental revenue. Primary operational expenditures are for staff, materials, external services and debt service grouped by division for Street Operations and Storm Drain Operations. The fund also includes Grounds Maintenance activity for the plaza and boulevards, debt service and Contingency. Actual 2007 to projected 2008 Street Operations personnel costs increased 10.2% while materials and services rose 3.4% during the same time. Actual 2007 to projected 2008 Storm Water Operations personnel costs increased 23.0% while materials and services rose 3.3% during the same time. Increases in staff costs include more time being spent during foul weather during winter months. Projections indicate operational revenue will exceed operational expense in FY 2008, contributing $550,000 to ending fund balance. This is due to consistent gas tax revenue in the past, interest earnings and under spending by the department, including savings from the RVTV contract. However, FY 2008-2009 is expected to be in the -$180,000 range with the prediction that sales of gallons of gasoline will drop severely impacting gas tax revenue. Operational expenses, and the potential of added debt service for approved projects also contribute to the shortfall. Due to anticipated debt service and capital needs staff proposes a 3.0% increase for Transportation. Due to the ongoing shortfall between Storm Water revenues and expenses and a negative operational reserve, staff recommends a 10% increase. Water Fund The Water Fund is an enterprise with a FY 2008 annual budget of approximately $7.6 million including $2.3 million in capital expenditures. Adopted for FY 2009 is a budget of $8.0 million with $2.9 million in capital expenditures. The long-term budget indicates the need to borrow $4.75 million for capital improvements in the next year and $6.6 million before 2015. Page 3 of 5 061708 Utility Rates.CC.doc Imo, CITY OF ASHLAND As of June 30, 2007, the proprietary statements showed $33.2 million in assets with $11.3 million in depreciation and $5.2 million in related debt that will be retired in December 2022. That leaves a net investment of about $16.6 million. The Capital Improvement Program identifies $27 million in projects from FY 2008 through FY 2014 including $11 million for the Talent, Ashland Phoenix (TAP) waterline project. The primary revenue sources are charges for services and system development charges (SDCs or impact fees). SDCs are restricted for capital improvements or debt service related to such projects. Grants of $50,000 for forest interface work are proposed in 2009. Primary operational expenditures are for staff, materials, external services and debt service segregated by major activities including Conservation, Supply, Treatment, Distribution and Forest Interface divisions. Actual 2007 to projected 2008 personnel costs increased 11.4% while materials and services rose 17% during the same time. Projections indicate operational expenses will exceed operational revenues by over $400,000 in FY 2007-2008. FY 2008-2009 is expected to do the same. The result is operating ending fund balance will decrease to $550,000, or $330,000 below the fund balance target of 20% of annual revenues. Due to low water sales and increased capital needs, staff proposes an array of adjustments rather than a 7.5% across the boards. To ease the burden on all users for culinary and health needs AND to send a conservation message, Staff is proposing a 4% increase on base rates, 2% on the lowest block of water, 4% on the second black, 6% on the third and 8% on the highest block. Wastewater Fund The Wastewater Fund is an enterprise with a FY 2008 annual budget of approximately $6.7 million including $1.5 million in capital expenditures. Adopted for FY 2009 is a budget of $7.1 million with $1.9 million in capital expenditures. The long-term budget indicates the need to borrow $3.0 million for capital improvements in the next year and $2.3 million before 2014. As of June 30, 2007, the proprietary statements showed $49 million in assets with $8.3 million in depreciation and $19.7 million in related debt (DEQ loan) that will be retired May 2022. That leaves a net investment of about $21 million. The Capital Improvement Program identifies $8 million in projects from FY 2008 through FY 2014 including $2 million for the thermal improvements. The primary revenue sources are charges for services, food & beverage tax proceeds and system development charges (SDCs or impact fees). SDCs are restricted for capital improvements or debt service related to such projects. Primary operational expenditures are for staff, materials, external services and debt service grouped by division for Collection and Treatment. Actual 2007 to projected 2008 personnel costs increased 7.7% while materials and services rose 11.7% during the same time. Projections indicate operational expenses will exceed operational revenues by $386,000 in FY 2007-2008. FY 2008-2009 is expected to be in the -$700,000 range. This results in operating ending fund balance just meeting the minimum debt coverage requirement of the DEQ loan. Due to increased coital needs and the requirement to meet loan covenants, staff proposes a 3.0% increase. Review of rate adjustments: Staff provided a comprehensive report about this time last year as part of a public hearing. Subsequent rate increases to Transportation and Storm Water utility fees and to Water and Wastewater rates were Page 4 of 5 061708 Utility Rates.CC.doc 1iW, CITY OF ASHLAND approved effective August 1st, 2007. No utility rate increases were implemented during the prior fiscal year and only the electric rate increase, offset by the surcharge decrease, has been done since. Electric rates are not being considered at this time but the ratio of revenue to expense should be monitored during the year. Telecommunications rates are also not included in that they are on a different process than these basic utilities. Below is a table showing recent rate increases compared to the 2009 budgeted increases and what is recommended: Actual, Budgeted & Recommended Increases 2006 Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Budgeted Recommended Transportation Utility Fee 8.1% 0.0% 15.0% 3.0% 3.0% Storm Drain Utility Fee 8.4% 0.0% 50.0% 5.0% 10.0% Water Fees 3.51/6 0.0% 6.0% 5.0% 2%-8% Wastewater Fees 3.0% 0.0% 10.0% 3.0% 3.0% Electric Rate Increase ' 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% Electric Surcharge Elimination in 2007.2008 -10.0% 0.0% -16.6% WA NIA Electric rate increase and Surcharge elimination in 2008 is estimated to have a zero impact on the average customer. Summary Staff recognizes the concern about anticipated adjustments in the budget becoming automatic or "routine" just as there is concern that ignoring or minimizing the necessity for rate adjustments and borrowing for capital needs is not reasonable. The proposed rate increases would raise the average total utility bill (including electricity and user tax) for a family of four approximately $3.62 or 2.1% per month depending upon water consumption. The average percentage increase for these four utilities is estimated at 5.7%. Related City Policies: Financial Management Policy Council Options: Council can: 1. Accept the increases proposed by staff. 2. Raise or lower any or all increases based upon discussions. 3. Defer rate changes for additional information. Potential Motions: Council moves to accept staff proposal (as revised) and raise rates per the attached resolution(s). Attachments: Resolutions for Transportation, Storm Water (Storm drain), Water and wastewater rates. Page 5 of 5 061708 Utility Rates.CC.doc Pr, RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.26.020 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-21. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Transportation Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the transportation user fees incorporating a 3% rate increase effective August 1, 2008. SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective August 1, 2008. SECTION 4. Resolution 2007-21 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5). This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.26.020 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-21. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Transportation Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the transportation user fees incorporating a 3% rate increase effective August 1, 2008. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective August 1, 2008. SECTION 4. Resolution 2007-21 is repealed on the date new rates established by this Resolution are effective. SECTION 5. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5). This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Exhibit A City of Ashland TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION 2008- Effective Date, August 1, 2008 Effective 3% rate increase Transportation Fee 8/1/2007 effective 8/1/2008 Unit A. Single Family $ 7.49 $ 7.71 Per month B. Multiple Family $ 5.71 $ 5.88 Per month per unit C. Retail Store $ 1.02 $ 1.05 Per month per 100 sq ft. D. Wholesale Use $ 0.60 $ 0.62 Per month per 100 sq ft. E. Office Use $ 0.68 $ 0.70 Per month per 100 sq ft. F. Medical/Dental Use $ 0.92 $ 0.95 Per month per 100 sq ft. G. Service Use $ 0.92 $ 0.95 Per month per 100 sq ft. H. Restaurant/Bar Use $ 2.68 $ 2.76 Per month per 100 sq ft. 1. Manufacturing Use $ 0.60 $ 0.62 Per month per 100 sq ft. J. Warehousing Use $ 0.34 $ 0.35 Per month per 100 sq ft. K. Hotel/Motel Use $ 2.68 $ 2.76 Per month per guest room L. Institutional and all other accounts not $ 2.68 $ 2.76 Per month per required parking spaces classified above. Including nursing as specified in Chapter 18.92. homes and retirement homes M. Churches and places of Worship Exempt NOTE: Users with in the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the city. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $ 7.49 $ 7.71 H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\June 16 and 17\061708 Utility Rales.Res.Transp.atchl.xls 6/12/2008,3:51 PM RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STORM DRAINAGE (STORM WATER) UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.27.050 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-22. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Storm Drainage Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the Storm Drainage Utility fees incorporating a 10% rate increase, effective August 1, 2008. The City Administrator will provide the City Council with a review of the rate structure by July 1, 2012. SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective August 1, 2008. SECTION 4. Resolution 2007-22 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5). This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STORM DRAINAGE (STORM WATER) UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.27.050 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-22. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Storm Drainage Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the Storm Drainage Utility fees incorporating a 10% rate increase effective August 1, 2008. The City Administrator will provide the City Council with a review of the rate structure by July 1, 2012. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective August 1, 2008. SECTION 4. Resolution 2007-22 is repealed on the date new rates established by this Resolution are effective. SECTION 5. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5). This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June,.2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Exhibit A City of Ashland STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION 2008- Effective Date, August 1, 2008 Effective 10% rate increase Storm Drainage Rate 3/1/2006 effective 811/2008 Unit A. Single Family $ 3.68 $ 4.05 Per month B. Condominium, 1-9 Units $ 1.59 $ 1.75 Per month per unit C. Multi-Family,/-9 Units $ 1.59 $ 1.75 Per month per unit D. Mobile Home & Trailer,/-9 Unites $ 1.59 $ 1.75 Per month per unit E. All other uses not classified above $ 1.23 $ 1.35 Per 1000 square feet impervious area F. Minimum charge per account $ 3.68 $ 4.05 Per month NOTE: Users with in the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the city. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $ 3.68 $ 4.05 H:1ShipletDlCouncMCouncil Communication120081June 16 and 1 710 61 7 0 8 Utility Rates.Res.Storm.atchl.xls 6/12/2008,3:51 PM RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.04.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-23. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the water rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after August 1, 2008. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2007-23 is repealed. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.04.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-23. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the water rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after August 1, 2008. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2007-23 is repealed on the date new rates established by this Resolution are effective. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT "A" WATER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2008- ADOPTED JUNE 17, 2008 EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2008 METERED SERVICE All water service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.04 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. WATER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS A. MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE: The basic service charge applies to all metered water services and does not include any water consumption. OLD NEW 0.75 Inch Meter $ 10.91/month $11.35/month 1 Inch Meter $ 21.81 /month $22.68/month 1.5 Inch Meter $ 31.10/month $32.34/month 2 Inch Meter $ 40.96/month $42.60/month 3 Inch Meter $ 85.63/month $89.06/month 4 Inch Meter $130.92/month $136.16/month 6 Inch Meter $245.49/month $255.31/month 8 Inch Meter $409.13/month $425.50/month B. WATER QUANTITY CHARGE: All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic feet of water used. Single Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month $1.27/ccf $1.30/ccf 301 to 1000 cf per month $1.54/ccf $1.60/ccf 1001 to 2500 cf per month $2.01/ccf $2.13/ccf Over 2500 cf per month $2.55/ccf $2.75/ccf Multi-Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month per unit $1.27/ccf $1.30/ccf 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit $1.54/ccf $1.60/ccf 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit $2.01/ccf $2.13/ccf Over 2500 cf per month per unit $2.55/ccf $2.75/ccf EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 - Effective August 1, 2008 Non-Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 50,000 cf per month $1.74/ccf $1.83/ccf Over 50,000 cf per month $1.79/ccf $1.88/ccf C. TID IRRIGATION WATER RATES: Unmetered Service $85.98/acre or portion of an acre - OLD $90.28/acre or portion of an acre - NEW Metered Service Base Service Charge Same as "A" above Water Consumption $0.28/ccf - OLD $0.29/ccf - NEW D. BULK WATER RATE: For water provided on a temporary basis through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant, the following charges apply: OLD NEW Deposit* $940.22 $987.23 Basic Fee $118.72 $124.66 Cost of Water Same as Commercial. *Deposit is refundable less basic fee, cost of water, and any damage to the city meter, valve, wrench, and/or hydrant. E. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE WATER RATE: This rate shall apply to all fire protection services or fire guards. The basic service charge will be equal to the minimum basic service charge. Water will be billed at commercial rates. 2. RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be 1.5 times the rates for water service provided within the city limits. EXHIBIT A - PAGE 2 - Effective August 1, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WASTEWATER (SEWER) SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.08.035 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-24. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The wastewater (sewer) rate charges and rates as shown on the wastewater (sewer) rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after August 1, 2008. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2007-24 is repealed. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WASTEWATER (SEWER) SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.08.035 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-24. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The wastewater (sewer) rate charges and rates as shown on the wastewater (sewer) rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after August 1, 2008. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2007-24 is repealed on the date new rates established by this Resolution are effective. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE1 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SEWER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2008- ADOPTED JUNE 17, 2008 EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2008 All sewer service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.08 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. SEWER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS Single Family Residentia' - August 2007 August 2008 Monthly Serv e C+harge $ 3.0_ $ .4$ Quantity Charge per 100 cf $1.96 $2.02 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet (cf) per month. Winter consumption is defined as the average of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings taken during the previous three months. Single family residential water accounts with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based on 700 cubic feet. Mu1ti~F,amily Residential August 2007 August 2008 MonthI Service Charge per Unit $13.09 $13.48 Quantity Charge per 100 of $196 2.Q2 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet per month per unit. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Multi-family residential accounts are all accounts in which more than one residential dwelling is attached to the same water service. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water readings taken during the previous three months. Multi-family residential water account with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based at 500 cubic feet. Two dormitory rooms are equal to one multi-family residential unit. SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 Commercial, Industrial and August 2007 August 2008 Governmental Mernthly Service Charge $Z13.6$~ $14.09 Quantity Charge per 100 cf $2.17 $2.24 Quantity Charge is based on actual monthly water consumption. Mixed residential and commercial accounts will be billed as commercial. For commercial, industrial or governmental users where monthly water consumption is not measured through city water meters, the sewer rate will be establishes as follows: The annual water consumption will be determine by an estimate made by the Director of Finance who shall use water consumption records of similar users or water consumption record of past use, if available. The annual water consumption will be multiplied by the Quantity Charge set forth above and the product divided by twelve. The quotient will be added to the Monthly Service Charge set forth above. The sum shall be the monthly sewer rate for the user. This rate shall be effective beginning in the month after the rate is determined until the following July or until the rate schedule is amended by resolution of the council. At such time the Director shall redetermine the annual water consumption and compute the monthly sewer rate using the formal asset forth above. Water consumption determined in this manner shall be lowered if the user can demonstrate through the use of a meter approved by the city that the user's actual consumption is less than the estimate. 2. ADDJUSTMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SEWER RATES A. If a commercial, industrial or governmental user can demonstrate that the volume of sewage discharged by the user is less than 50% of the water consumed, the City Administrator may adjust the sewer user charge accordingly. Methodology for Special Cases for City Administrator 1. Greenhouses, Churches, and Schools (grades K-12) operating on a nine month school year. August 2007 August 2008 Monthly Service Charge $13.58 $14.09 Quantity C~iharge per 100 of $2.17 $2.24 SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 3 ' Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings during the previous three months. 1. Bed and Breakfasts and Ashland Parks Bathroom tt August 2007 Au usl 2008 Monthlu Sen,iee C>harQe $13.68 $14.09 Quantit, C►haree ner 10.0 cf $2.17 $2.24 Quantity Charge is based on winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the total of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings during the previous three months. B. Water sold through an irrigation meter is exempt from sewer user charge. 3. SEWER RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS A. The sewer user charge shall apply to those sewer users permitted under Section 14.08.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. The sewer rates for outside the City limits shall be two times the sewer charges for inside the City limits. Unmetered residential accounts will be calculated on an average winter usage of 700 cubic feet of water for single family residences, and 500 cubic feet per unit for multi-family residences. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Agreement for Partial Settlement of MAA v. City of Ashland Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Approval: Martha J. Bennett Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: Does the Council wish to adopt a Partial Settlement Agreement, wherein MAA's withdraws a breach of contract claim that was included in MAA v. City of Ashland the City agrees not to object to an amended complaint, and both parties agree that neither party will seek to recover legal fees for this portion of the litigation? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the agreement for partial settlement. Background: In discussions with MAA staff and legal counsel about MAA v. City of Ashland, the staff and legal counsels have come to an agreement for the City Council and MAA board to consider. The proposed partial settlement includes three elements: • MAA would dismiss their first claim for relief, which was the breach of contract claim, for any action that took place prior to the date of this agreement. ■ MAA would file an amended claim, dropping the first claim and clarifying the request for the judge to rule on the respective rights of the parties. The amended complaint is attached to this agreement, and the revised language is included. The City agrees to not object to this revised complaint. • Both parties agree not to seek legal fees from the work done up to the date of the agreement on the breach of contract claim. This is found in paragraph #2 of the agreement. Attachments: Agreement to implement partial settlement offer with revised complaint attached 2008-CC-OPEN SESSION-MAA June 08 Final Partial Settlement.doc SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN: Mt. Ashland Association, an Oregon non-profit corporation ("MAA") AND: City of Ashland, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Ashland") EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon signature by both parties. RECITALS A. MAA filed a lawsuit against Ashland entitled Mt. Ashland Association v The City of Ashland, Jackson County Circuit Court Case No. 072744-E2(7) ("Lawsuit"). B. MAA and Ashland desire to settle one of the claims in the Lawsuit, and therefore enter into this settlement agreement ("Agreement"). AGREEMENT Now, therefore, in consideration of the covenants and promises set forth below and the recitals set forth above, which are hereby incorporated by reference, MAA and Ashland agree as follows: I . Dismissal of First Claim for Relief. MAA shall dismiss the First Claim for Relief alleged in its Complaint in the Lawsuit, with prejudice, within ten days of the effective date of this Agreement. MAA shall do so by filing an unopposed motion (a) to dismiss the First Claim for Relief with prejudice and (b) to file a First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. MAA and Ashland agree that the dismissal with prejudice of the First Claim for Relief shall preclude MAA from asserting a claim for monetary damages arising from any and all breaches of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease by Ashland before the effective date of this Agreement, whether or not alleged in the Lawsuit. MAA and Ashland agree that the dismissal with prejudice shall not preclude MAA from asserting in the future a claim for monetary damages which arises from any breach of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease which occurs after the effective date of this Agreement. MAA and Ashland further agree that the dismissal with prejudice shall not preclude MAA from asserting a claim for monetary damages which arises from Ashland's interference, after the effective date of this Agreement, with the issuance of any contract or permit by the United States Forest Service, or with the submission of any work plan or other document by MAA to the Forest Service, in connection with the proposed expansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area, including, but not limited to, Ashland's refusal to withdraw the directive set forth in City Administrator Martha Bennett's letter dated October 3, 2006 to Linda Duffy of the Forest Service. Settlement Agreement - Page 1 of 2 2. Waiver of Claims for Attorney Fees on First Claim for Relief. MAA and Ashland waive any and all claims for attorney fees which are solely attributable to the First Claim for Reliefe ' In recognition that both parties have incurred attorney fees for legal work which is common to all three of MAA's claims for relief in its Complaint, and in recognition of the rule that attorney fees need not be apportioned when they are incurred for representation on an issue common to a claim in which fees are proper and one in which they are not, see Greb v Murray, 102 Or App 573, 576 (1990), the parties hereby stipulate and agree that 50% of all attorney fees they have incurred in the Lawsuit before the effective date of this Agreement shall be deemed to be solely attributable to the First Claim for Relief. 3. Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein contained and all prior negotiations, discussions, writings and agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein contained are superseded and of no further force and effect. This Agreement can only be amended or modified in writing signed by both parties hereto. 4. Warranties. The undersigned parties warrant that no promise or inducement has been offered except as set forth herein; that this Agreement is executed without reliance upon any statement or representation by the persons or entities released or their representatives, except as set forth herein; and that each of the undersigned is authorized to execute this Agreement. 5. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. Dated: June , 2008 Dated: June 2008 MT. ASHLAND ASSOCIATION CITY OF ASHLAND By: By: [Name] Martha Bennett [Title] City Administrator 00198825.DOC;1 Settlement Agreement - Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 5 FOR JACKSON COUNTY 6 MT. ASHLAND ASSOCIATION, an 7 Oregon non-profit corporation, Case No. 072744-E2 Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT 8 (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) V. 9 CLAIMS NOT SUBJECT TO CITY OF ASHLAND, MANDATORY ARBITRATION 10 Defendant. 11 12 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 13 1. 14 Plaintiff, Mt. Ashland Association ("IAA"), is an Oregon non-profit corporation 15 organized for the purpose of providing educational and recreational opportunities to the general i 16 public through the operation and management of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area 17 2. 18 Defendant, the City of Ashland ("City"), is a municipality chartered in the State of 19 Oregon. 20 3. 21 Venue is proper in this Court as both parties reside, and the events at issue occurred, in 22 Jackson County, Oregon. 23 24 I-AMENDED COMPLAINT suycke, O'Connor, Jazvia a Lohman, LLP 823 Alder Creek Drive Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 Page 1 of 11 e-mail: officeemedfordlaw.nee 1 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 2 MAA and the City Enter Into the Lease. 3 4. 4 In 1991, the United States Forest Service ("USFS") approved the Master Plan for the 5 Mt. Ashland Ski Area in a Final Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision. In 6 1992, the City purchased the assets of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area ("NASA") from the former 7 private owner. The funds used to purchase the assets of MASA were donated to the City by 8 private individuals as a part of a community campaign to prevent MASA from closing. After 9 purchasing the MASA assets, in July 1992, the City obtained the Ski Area Term Special Use If) Permit (the "SUP") from the USFS, which owns the federal land on which MASA is located. 11 According to its terms, the SUP entitles the holder to use National Forest System lands for the 12 purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining MASA through July 4, 2017. 13 5 14 Also in July 1992, the City and MAA entered into the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease (the 15 "Lease"). Under the Lease, MAA "assumes responsibility for payment and performance of all 16 obligations of the City of Ashland under the [SUP]." 17 6. 18 Under the Lease, MAA has a dut y to "provide educational and recreational programs to . 19 residents of the City of Ashland" and to operate MASA in a manner "which will stimulate the 2 economy of the City." 21 7. 22 Under the Lease, MAA "agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify [City] from and 23 against any loss, claim or liability suffered by or asserted against [City] as a result of [MAA's] 24 2- AMENDED COMPLAINT Huycke, O'Connor, Jarvis & Lohman, LLP 823 Alder Creek Drive Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 Page 2 of 11 E-mail: officemmedfordlaw. net I 1 failure to fully pay and perform the obligations of the [SUP]." Under the Lease, MAA is 2 required to operate MASH, maintain and insure all of the equipment and buildings, and pay all 3 utilities and taxes. 4 8. 5 The Lease expires on June 30, 2017, with an option for MAA to extend the Lease for an 6 additional 25 years, until June 30, 2042. 7 9. 8 Under the Lease, MAA has "sole and exclusive possession and use" of MASA "for the 9 purpose of constructing, improving, maintaining and operating year-round educational and/or 10 recreational facilities for the benefit of the general public (including but not limited to a ski area 11 and/or winter sports resort)." 12 10. 13 MAA has the right to make changes and improvements to the leased property without 14 seeking consent of the City. Specifically, Section 6.1 of the Lease provides that MAA may, at i 15 own expense, "make such alterations, improvements, additions and changes to the Leased 16 Property as it may deem necessary or expedient in the operation of the Leased Property" 17 provided that such changes do not substantially diminish the value of the property. 18 MAA Plans an Expansion of MASH, Which the USFS Approves. 19 11. 20 For more than a decade, MAA has worked on a proposed expansion of MASA. The j 21 USFS issued the September 2004 Record of Decision on the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion i 22 (the "2004 ROD"), authorizing MAA to improve and expand MASA. Several environmental 23 organizations and Eric Navickas, a current City Councilor, challenged the 2004 ROD in a federal 24 i 3 - AMENDED COMPLAINT Huycke, o, Connor, Jarvia 6 Lohman, LLP 823 Alder creek Drive Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 page 3 of 11 H-mails of ficeemedfordlaw. net J 1 lawsuit. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the claims raised 2 against the 2004 ROD, which decision was appealed and reversed and remanded by the United 3 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in September 2007. The USFS is currently 4 addressing issues raised by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 5 12. 6 The project approved in the 2004 ROD includes a limited expansion of the current ski 7 facilities, including development of approximately 71 acres of new ski ran terrain, construction 8 of two chairlifts, two surface lifts, additional guest service facilities, additional parking, and a 9 snow tubing area. 10 13. 11 The approved project will improve and increase the amount of beginner and intermediate 12 skiing terrain at MASA, and with the tubing area and other facility upgrades, the project will 13 provide increased capacity and more balanced, diverse, and safe winter recreation experiences to i 14 serve a greater spectrum of the local and regional public, including youth and elders. With these 15 upgrades, the long-term economic viability of MASA will be greatly improved. 16 14. 17 Under the SUP, the City was required to and did obtain the approval of the USFS before 18 entering into the Lease with MAA. As a result, and because MAA has assumed all of the City's 19 obligations under the SUP, the USFS worked directly with MAA with regard to all aspects of 20 MASA's operation and the expansion project, until the City forced a change in October 2006. 21 22 23 I 24 4- AMENDED COMPLAINT Huycke, O,Connor, Jarvis a Lohman, rd,e Exhibit 1 823 Alder Creek Drive Page 4 of 11 Medford, Oregon 97504 E-mail: off iceemedfordlaw. net 1 The City Instructs USFS Not to Work Directly with MAA Regarding the Expansion. 2 15. 3 By letter dated October 3, 2006, the City told the USFS that the USFS was to "direct all 4 future contracts and permits to the City" and not to MAA. The City explained that its directive 5 "includes activities in preparation for the Ski Run Settlement Sale, as well as future expansion 6 permitting. Per the Forest Service's Record of Decision (ROD) released on September 13, 2004, 7 the City will provide the Operating Plan to initiate the construction activities related to the 8 expansion process." Said letter violated the agreement and practice concerning submission of 9 Operating Plan(s) to the USFS, which previously had been prepared and submitted by MAA 10 without input or interference by the City. By letter dated October 4, 2006, the City notified 11 MAA of the directives the City sent to the USFS. By letter dated October 5, 2006, the USFS 12 agreed to follow the City's directives and stated that "all future contracts and permits [would] be 13 directed to the City and not to the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA)." Since October 5, 2006, the 14 USFS has complied with the City's directives. I 15 16. 16 Tice City's directives to the USFS have impeded and delayed the implementation of the I 17 expansion project. For example, MAA and the USFS are ready to execute a Timber Settlement 18 Sale Contract, but they cannot execute it because the City has refused to authorize the USFS to 19 issue the Timber Settlement Sale Contract in MAA's name. Without executing the Timber 20 Settlement Sale Contract, MAA cannot continue its planning and implementation of the 21 proposed expansion. i 22 I 23 24 5 _ AMENDED OOMrLATNT wyeke, O'Connor, Jarvis & Lohman, LLn 823 Alder Creek Drive I Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 Page 5 of 11 E-mail. off iaeemedfordlaw. net 1 17. 2 On June 29, 2007, the City sent a letter to the USFS acknowledging that the USFS 3 "expects the City to designate the party that -will purchase the Timber Settlement Sale" and that 4 "AAA will be the appropriate purchaser of the Settlement Sale." In its letter, the City explained 5 to the USFS that "there are issues that affect the City's relationship with MAA that we would like 6 to resolve before the Settlement Sale contract is signed." Also on June 29, 2007, the City sent a 7 letter to MAA acknowledging that "under the lease agreement , MAA should purchase the 8 Settlement Sale contract." In that letter, the City further stated, however, that the City "would 9 like to make another attempt to reach a mutual agreement on the issues identified in City Council 10 resolution 2005-35 before it authorizes the Forest Service to put MAA's name on the contract." 11 In that resolution, the City Council requested that MAA take certain steps that MAA is not 12 obliged to take under the Lease, Thus, the City's June 29 letter to MAA shows as clearly as 13 possible that the City is imposing new, extra contractual obligations on MAA as a condition of 14, the City's compliance with its own obligation under the Lease to allow MAA to proceed with the 15 expansion. 16 18. 17 The City's refusal to allow MAA and the USFS to deal directly regarding the expansion 18 places MAA in an untenable position; under the Lease, MAA has contractually assumed all of 19 the City's obligations under the SUP, but the City is preventing MAA from dealing directly with 20 the USFS regarding the contracts and permits necessary for expansion, and, therefore, from 21 fulfilling the obligations that MAA has assumed. 22 23 i 24 6- AMENDED COMPLAINT s yoke, o-Connor, Sarvin s Lohman, LLP 823 Alder Creek Drive Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 page 6 of 11 E-mail, offioe0medfordlaw.net l 1 19. 2 Further substantial delay in the proposed expansion caused by the City's actions will 3 harm the economic viability of the MASA. Many of the existing MASA facilities are outdated 4 or undersized, which reduces the effectiveness of MASA in providing a quality recreational s experience for the public. MASA is below industry standards with respect to the variety of 6 skiing and non-skiing related facilities, particularly beginner and intermediate skier/snowboarder 7 terrain. The lack of quality and variety at MASA threatens the continued economic viability of 8 the ski area as well as presenting current safety and public service challenges. 9 20. 10 Further substantial delay in implementing the expansion caused by the City's actions also i 11 threatens MAA's ability to obtain funds to finance the project and to earn the revenue from 12 implementation. The projected revenue increases with improvements in place would be earned 13 with only a marginal increase in operational expenses, resulting in positive net operating 14 revenue, improving MASA's viability. Further, the majority of the expansion components are 15 anticipated to be funded with private donations earned in a capital campaign. Potential donors 16 have indicated that, although they consider the project to be important to the region's quality of 17 life and economy, they are concerned that the improvements be made soon. 18 21. 19 Without prompt improvements, MASA will suffer continued loss of its ability to compete 20 with other more distant ski areas and other recreational and entertainment activities and will lose 21 business due to the inability to meet guests' expectations. MAA will be unable to provide 22 services to more people who could potentially use the facility, will be unable to meet the 23 demands of a growing population, and will be unable to stimulate the economy of the City. 24 7- AMENDED COMPLAINT auycke, O'Connor, Jarvis & Lohman, LLP 823 Alder creek Drive Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 Page 7 of 11 E-mail: officeomedfordlaw.net 1 MASA will remain a facility that is unable to meet the needs of the communities of the region. 2 The economic benefits alone of MASA in the southern Oregon and northern California region 3 have been estimated at more than $10 million per year. 4 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 5 (Oregon Declaratory Judgment Act, ORS 28.010 et seq.) 6 22, 7 Paragraphs 1 through 21 above are incorporated as if fully alleged herein. 8 23. 9 The City's actions as alleged above constitute a breach of contract. There is an actual i , 10 controversy between the parties that is within the jurisdiction of this Court, 11 24. 12 MAA requests a judicial declaration and determination of the respective rights of the 13 parties under the Lease as to the following particulars: 14 A. That the City has breached the Lease by directing the USFS to not deal 15 directly with MAA on contracts and permits relating to the MASA expansion 16 project; 17 B. That the City has breached the Lease by refusing to allow MAA and the USFS 18 to execute the Timber Settlement Sale Contract; 19 C. That restoration and rehabilitation standards of the real property that is the 20 subject of the Lease following the MASA expansion project and unlikely i 21 abandonment of the ski area by MAA, in addition to appropriate bonding or 22 security to fund such restoration and rehabilitation, are to be determined by 23 the USFS and that the City has no right to impose additional restoration or 24 8- AMENDED COMPLAINT nuyoke, wconnor, Jarvis 6 Lohman, LLB 823 Alder Creek Drive Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 Page 8 of 11 a-nail: offieeQmedfordlaw.net I rehabilitation standards or require additional bonding or security pursuant to 2 the Lease or otherwise; 3 D. That the City has no right under the Lease to request any business plan or 4 otherwise interfere with the financial affairs of MAA in connection with 5 matters relating to the MASA expansion project or otherwise; 6 E. That the City has no right under the Lease or otherwise to impose 7 requirements upon MAA for oversight or monitoring of matters relating to 8 construction activities associated with the NASA expansion project, including 9 matters relating to erosion, sediment control, mitigation, and 10 restoration/remediation; 11 F. That City Resolution 2005-35 involves matters outside the scope of the Lease 12 and that the City may not impose requirements relating to the subject matter o i 13 Resolution 2005-35 without a modification of the terms of the Lease; and 14 G. That the Lease generally confers all rights concerning the operation of MASA 15 to MAA, including matters relating to expansion and operation MASA, and i 16 that the City may not impose restrictions or requirements on MAA unless such 17 restrictions or requirements are expressly permitted under the terms of the 18 Lease. 19 25. 20 Pursuant to Section 15 of the Lease, MAA is entitled to its reasonable attorney fees 21 incurred as a result of the City's breach of the terms of the Lease as alleged herein. 22 23 24 9 - AMENDED COMPLAINT auycke, o- Connor, Jarvis s Lohman, LLe 823 Alder Creek Drive Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 Page 9 of 11 E-mail: officeemedfordlaw.net 1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2 (Injunctive Reliet) 3 26. 4 Paragraphs 1 through 25 above are incorporated as if fully alleged herein. 5 27. 6 The City's actions threaten irreparable harm to MAA and to the continued viability of 7 MASA. Closure of MASA would cause irreparable injury to the community at large. 8 28. 9 Accordingly, MAA requests that this Court immediately enjoin the City from continuing 10 to breach the Lease, enjoin the City from interfering with MAA's rights to possess and improve 11 MASA, enjoin the City from improperly preventing MAA from dealing directly with the USFS 12 regarding the expansion project, and enjoin the City from otherwise breaching the Lease. 13 Additionally, pursuant to Section 15 of the Lease, MAA is entitled to its reasonable attorney 14 fees. 15 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 16 WHEREFORE, MAA demands judgment against the City as follows: 17 1. On the First Claim for Relief, for a judicial declaration and determination of the 18 respective rights of the parties under the Lease and for a declaration that the City has breached 19 the Lease and a declaration of the parties rights and obligations under the lease consistent with 20 the allegations set forth in paragraph 24 herein; 21 2. On the Second Claim for Relief; for an order enjoining the City from continuing 22 to breach the Lease, enjoining the City from interfering with MAA's rights to possess and 23 improve MASA and enjoining the City from improperly Preventing MAA from dealing direct) Y 24 10-AMENDED COMPLAINT auycke, o'connor, Jarvis a Lohman, LLP 823 Alder Creek Drive Medford, Oregon 97504 Exhibit-I.:. E-mail: office@medfordlaw.net Page.9O of:1 q... I with the USFS regarding the expansion project, and enjoining the City from otherwise breaching 2 the Lease; 3 3. For the costs and disbursements incurred in this action; 9 4. For attorneys fees as provided for by the Lease; and 5 5. For such other, further, and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper, 6 other than monetary damages, which MAA does not seek in this lawsuit. 7 DATED: May 2008 I-IUYCKE, O'CONNOR, JARVIS & 8 LOHMAN, LLP 9 By. Darrel R. Jarvis, OSB No. 955013 djarvis@medfordlaw.net 10 Huycke, O'Connor, Jarvis & Lohman, LLP 11 823 Alder Creek Drive Medford, OR 97504 12 Telephone: 541.772.1977 ext. 23 Facsimile: 541.772.3443 i 13 Sarah J. Crooks, OSB No. 97151 SCrooks@perkinscoie.com 19 Christopher L. Garrett, OSB No. 03100 CGarrett@perkinscoie.com i 15 1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland OR 97209-4128 16 Telephone: 503.727.2000 Facsimile: 503.727.2222 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 Mt. Ashland Association 19 20 I 21 22 23 29 11-AMENDED COMPLAINT Huycke, O'Connor, Jarvis b Lohman, LLP 823 Alder Creek Drive Exhibit 1 Medford, Oregon 97504 Page 11 of 11 E-mail: office@medfordlaw.net CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Resolution Relating to the Distribution of Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Meeting Date: June 16, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administration E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Ann Seltzer Approval: Martha Bennelffi Estimated Time: 30 minutes Question: How does Council wish to distribute Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue generated by the existing 7% tax and the additional 2% tax to be implemented effective October 1, 2008? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends council allocate the estimated revenue to be generated in FY 2008-2009 per Alternative A explained below and in subsequent years as outlined in the attached resolution. Background: At the regular City Council meeting on June 3, 2008, determined a preference to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax to 9% effective October 1, 2008, and approved first reading of an ordinance to that effect. Council directed staff to bring back a resolution that distributes the tax revenue to city services and external groups per the discussion. Staff has prepared a table suggesting a distribution methodology for FY 2008-2009 different than ongoing allocations because of the complexities of implementing the tax mid-year, estimating the potential increased amount to be received and the necessity to meet state requirements for tourism expenditures on the two levels - pre-2004 tourism percentage of 14.23% and the state required 70% tourism expenditure for revenue generated from a tax rate increase. Points to remember in this discussion: 1. The city must meet both targets for tourism expenditure - a minimum of 14.23% of the existing TOT revenue and 70% of new revenue. 2. The earliest that additional tax revenue will be received is the end of November (for lodging establishments that report on a monthly basis). Most of the new revenue will not begin to be received until close to the end of January 2009. 3. In order to expend the revenue in FY 2008-2009 the city will have to estimate the new revenue and allocate it by direct award or grant before it is actually received. (This process is normal but the estimates are less reliable with an increased tax in a soft economy.) 4. It may be desirable to allocate and award additional tourism monies early in FY 2008-09 to have the most significant impact this coming off season. 5. The ability for many small grant recipients to adequately expend and accurately track tourism expenditures at a heightened level to meet the state requirement is unproven. (Failure to document such expenditures could jeopardize future state revenue sharing with the city. 6.. Monies that may not be able to be expended by June 30, 2009, to meet tourism targets can be "banked" for future qualifying expenditures. Pagel of 3 061708 Distribution of TOT.CC.doc C I T Y OF ASHLAND Staff sees four options: A. Distribute "reduced" amounts by straight pro-ration ensuring that target amounts for tourism, General Fund operations and council goals are met. B. Distribute revenues from the existing 7% tax per Resolution 2007-08 and as awarded through the budget/grant application process. Allocate additional portions of the 70% to the Chamber or others to accomplish specific tourism goals assisting small and medium grantees to bolster the coming off season; retaining the 30% to address city economic goals/projects in FY 2008- 09. Staff Recommendation below. C. Distribute additional tourism qualified revenues based upon another review of the applications received for the original Budget Sub-committee process, granting additional monies to those who best demonstrated their ability to meet state requirements, the city use existing revenues as previously identified and new non-tourism restricted revenues as determined later. D. Determine a new distribution based upon a second granting process for large and medium sized applicants that can demonstrate and ability to meet tourism and non-tourism targets; the city retains or banks what is not granted. Because any process will delay potential effective uses of tourism dollars and probably take more staff time than is available, management recommends Council focus on the staff recommendation. Table Revised for New Tax Starting Existing - 7% Council 4115 1011108 Estimation 10/1/08 Direction Staff Recommendation TOTAL REVENUE $1,525,000 $1,960,000 $1,775,000 Subtotal Non Tourism $1,308,000 $1,438,000 $1,383,000 • General Fund $1,017,000 $1,017,000 $1,017,000 • Small Grants $116,000 $116,000 $116,000 • Chamber Economic Dev. $175,000 $80,000 $80,000 • City Economic Dev./Strategic $0 $225,000 $170,000 Planning Subtotal tourism $217,000 $522,000 $392,000 • VCB rant $88,000 $225,000 $225,000 • OSF $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 • Small tourism rants $9,000 $109,000 $9,000 • Public Art $0 $15,000 $9,000 • Qualified city projects $0 $53,000 $0 • Based upon Council direction $29,000 Per the recommendation, Council would need to direct who the remaining $29,000 would go to for FY 2008-2009 only. Page 2 of 3 061708 Distribution of TOT.CC.doc 1`, CITY OF ASHLAND Related City Policies: AMC 4.24.020 Council Options: Council can: ■ Allocate or reallocate the tax revenues as previously discussed, as identified above or as amended through discussion to meet state tourism requirements and to fund needed services in the General Fund. • Reserve or "bank" the additional tax revenues to accomplish specific goals established at a later time. Potential Motions: 1. Move to approve the resolution allocating the TOT revenues as submitted by staff. 2. Move to approve the resolution as amended, allocating TOT revenue per discussion. Attachments: • Draft resolution • Ordinance in process The council packets from April 15 and June 3, 2008, are available online. Hard copies are available upon request. Page 3 of 3 061708 Distribution of TOT.CC.doe WEr, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY RELATING TO THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES FOR ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTEUMOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-08. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax. SECTION 2. The following are the goals which the Budget Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants for: a) Tourism Promotion: 1. Attract someone who travels to Ashland from more than 50 miles away to attend an event. 2. Attract someone who stays the night in Ashland to attend an event. b) Economic Development: 1. Promote increased number, variety and size of employers. 2. Encourage wages at or above median wage. 3. Promote businesses that employ 5 to 100 people or is locally owned. 4. Encourage use of local resources. 5. Work with Southern Oregon University, especially for international commerce. 6. Discourage businesses that need water, that emit air pollution, or that create toxic waste. c) Cultural Development: 1. Increase the number, variety and size of cultural opportunities in Ashland 2. Support diversification of the local economy 3. Showcases local talent 4. Work with Southern Oregon University on cultural programs SECTION 3. The City of Ashland has determined that as of July 1, 2003, $186,657 or 14.23% of total Hotel/Motel tax revenues were expended on tourism promotion, as defined in Chapter 818 of the 2003 Oregon Laws, and will continue to be spent on tourism promotion increased or decreased annually consistent with the estimated TOT revenues budgeted. Additionally, Chapter 818 requires 70% of any increased TOT revenue generated by a higher tax rate is committed to tourism promotion. The minimum amount to be spent on tourism in FY 2008-2009 is estimated at $392,000 ($217,000 from the original tax and $175,000 from the proposed increase). The 1- 061708 Distribution of TOT.Res.doc proposed allocation for FY 2008-2009 when the additional tax is in effect for only part of the year) is per the attached table. If sufficient TOT proceeds are generated to meet the top three priorities Beginning in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, the City Council will appropriate: 1. A minimum of 14.23% of the estimated TOT revenue to be generated by the first 7% tax rate for tourism promotion per Chapter 818, 2. A minimum of 70% of the estimated TOT revenue to be generated by additional tax rates approved by Council for tourism promotion per Chapter 818. The amount to be calculated and appropriated for tourism through the budget process with the following percentage distribution: Chamber of Commerce VCB 45% Oregon Shakespeare Festival 25% Economic and Cultural Development Grants - Tourism 12% Public Art 3% Remaining to tourism projects determined in budget process 15% The remaining TOT revenue (not restricted by use) calculated and appropriated for other uses through the budget process with the following priorities and dollar amounts as minimums unless insufficient tax proceeds remain after meeting tourism requirements: 1st Priority General Fund operations $1,020,000 2nd Priority Chamber of Commerce Economic Development programs $80,000 3rd Priority Economic and Cultural Development Grants $125,000 4th Priority Other Economic Development programs or other projects Remainin Other Economic Development programs or other projects are City activities unless other wise specified by City Council prior to the budget process. Council may determine they are available for Economic granting purposes and they will then be made available for the coming budget process and allocation. If insufficient TOT revenues are generated for the above allocations, the highest priority uses will receive their full allocation before a lower priority allocation. By January 31 of each year each recipient of a grant greater than $2,500 for non- tourism programs or any amount specifically intended for tourism per this resolution shall submit a report to the city council setting forth how the grant funds received were expended in furtherance of the goals set forth in Section 2. Grant recipients of $2,500 or less for non-tourism programs are required to report its use only when requesting additional money in a subsequent year. SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and Cultural Development Grants: a) Grantee shall be a 501(c) non-profit agency. 2- 061708 Distribution of TOT.Res.doc b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency. c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland. d) The minimum grant proposal will be $2,500. e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an economic nature. f) Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in the Rogue Valley. Monies granted are intended to be used for programs or services performed or provided within the City of Ashland or immediate areas. SECTION 5. Resolution 2007-08 is repealed upon passage of this resolution. SECTION 6. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney 3- 061708 Distribution of TOT.Res.doc Attachment: Allocation for FY 2008-2009 only. Table Revised for New Tax 10/1/08 Estimation Starting 10/1/08 Staff Recommendation TOTAL REVENUE $1,775,000 Subtotal Non Tourism $1,383,000 • General Fund $1,017,000 • Small Grants $116,000 • Chamber Economic Dev. $80,000 • City Economic Dev./Strate is Planning $170,000 Subtotal tourism $392,000 • VCB rant $225,000 • OSF $120,000 • Small tourism rants $9,000 • Public Art $9,000 • Qualified city projects $0 • Based upon Council direction $29,000 4- 061708 Distribution of TOT.Res.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY RELATING TO THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES FOR ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTEUMOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2007-08. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax. SECTION 2. The following are the goals which the Budget Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants for: a) Tourism Promotion: 1. Attract someone who travels to Ashland from more than 50 miles away to attend an event. 2. Attract someone who stays the night in Ashland to attend an event. b) Economic Development: 1. Promote increased number, variety and size of employers. 2. Encourage wages at or above median wage. 3. Promote businesses that employ 5 to 100 people or is locally owned. 4. Encourage use of local resources. 5. Work with Southern Oregon University, especially for international commerce. 6. Discourage businesses that need water, that emit air pollution, or that create toxic waste. c) Cultural Development: 1. Increase the number, variety and size of cultural opportunities in Ashland 2. Support diversification of the local economy 3. Showcases local talent 4. Work with Southern Oregon University on cultural programs SECTION 3. The City of Ashland has determined that as of July 1, 2003, $186,657 or 14.23% of total Hotel/Motel tax revenues were expended on tourism promotion, as defined in Chapter 818 of the 2003 Oregon Laws, and will continue to be spent on tourism promotion increased or decreased annually consistent with the estimated TOT revenues budgeted. Additionally, Chapter 818 requires 70% of any increased TOT revenue generated by a higher tax rate is committed to tourism promotion. The minimum amount to be spent on tourism in FY 2008-2009 is estimated at $392,000 ($217,000 from the original tax and $175,000 from the proposed increase). The 1- 061708 Distribution of TOT.Res Revised proposed allocation for FY 2008-2009 when the additional tax is in effect for only part of the year) is per the attached table. If sufficient TOT proceeds are generated to meet the top three priorities Beginning in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, the City Council will appropriate: 1. A minimum of 14.23% of the estimated TOT revenue to be generated by•the first 7% tax rate for tourism promotion per Chapter 818, 2. A minimum of 70% of the estimated TOT revenue to be generated by additional tax rates approved by Council for tourism promotion per Chapter 818. The amount to be calculated and appropriated for tourism through the budget process with the following percentage distribution: Chamber of Commerce VCB 45% Oregon Shakespeare Festival 25% Economic and Cultural Development Grants - Tourism 12% Public Art 3% Remaining to tourism projects determined in budget process 15% The remaining TOT revenue (not restricted by use) calculated and appropriated for other uses through the budget process with the following priorities and dollar amounts as minimums unless insufficient tax proceeds remain after meeting tourism requirements: 1st Priority General Fund operations $1,020,000 2nd Priority Chamber of Commerce Economic Development programs $80,000 3rd Priori Economic and Cultural Development Grants $125,000 4th Priority Other Economic Development programs or other projects Remaining Other Economic Development programs or other projects are City activities unless other wise specified by City Council prior to the budget process. Council may determine they are available for Economic granting purposes and they will then be made available for the coming budget process and allocation. If insufficient TOT revenues are generated for the above allocations, the highest priority uses will receive their full allocation before a lower priority allocation. By January 31 of each year each recipient of a grant greater than $2,500 for non- tourism programs or any amount specifically intended for tourism per this resolution shall submit a report to the city council setting forth how the grant funds received were expended in furtherance of the goals set forth in Section 2. Grant recipients of $2,500 or less for non-tourism programs are required to report its use only when requesting additional money in a subsequent year. SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and Cultural Development Grants: a) Grantee shall be a 501(c) non-profit agency. 2- 061708 Distribution of TOT.Res Revised b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency. c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland. d) The minimum grant proposal will be $2,500. e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an economic nature. f) Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in the Rogue Valley. Monies granted are intended to be used for programs or services performed or provided within the City of Ashland or immediate areas. SECTION 5. Resolution 2007-08 is repealed on October 1, 2008. SECTION 6. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney 3- 061708 Distribution ofTOT.Res Revised Attachment: Allocation for FY 2008-2009 only. Table Revised for New Tax 1011/08 Estimation Starting 10/1/08 Staff Recommendation TOTAL REVENUE $1,775,000 Subtotal Non Tourism $1,383,000 • General Fund $1,017,000 • Small Grants $116,000 • Chamber Economic Dev. $80,000 • City Economic Dev./Strate is Planning $170,000 Subtotal tourism $392,000 • VCB rant $225,000 • OSF $120,000 • Small tourism rants $9,000 • Public Art $9,000 • Qualified city projects $0 • Based upon Council direction $29,000 4- 061708 Distribution of TOT.Res Revised AjAutki P,wed ~l ?lay City of Ashland Economic & Cultural Development Grant Applications FY 2008-09 listed in the order received Requested Tourism Econ Dev Cultural Proposed Tourism Southern Oregon Concert Band $ 5,000 50% 50% 2,500 1,250 Nuwandart 4,500 10% 15% 75% Youth Symphony 6,500 100% 3,500 St. Clair 20,000 50% 50% 4,000 2,000 Oregon Stage Works 20,000 50% 50% 4,500 2,250 Ashland Bed and Breakfast 25,000 100% - 5,000 5,000 SOU Foundation-Native American Pr 5,000 50% 50% 2,500 1,250 Siskiyou Singers 6,500 15% 15% 70% 2,500 375 Ballet Rogue 12,000 33% 42% 25% 4,500 1,485 Rogue Opera 18,000 10% 30% 60% 7,000 700 Ashland Gallery Association 27,905 25% 47% 28% 11,000 2,750 Dancing People Company 5,000 20% 25% 55% 2,500 500 City of Ashland-Public Art Commissi 5,000 40% 60% Jefferson Center 5,000 50% 50% 2,500 1,250 Southern Oregon Film Society/Ashland 35,000 50% 50% 19,566 9,783 Southern Oregon Repertory Singers 7,500 40% 60% 2,500 1,000 Ashland Artisan Gallery and Art Center 10,000 35% 15% 50% - Friends of the Ashland Public Library/CI 5,000 100% 2,500 Rogue Valley Symphony 15,000 10% 90% 6,710 671 Lithia Arts Guild 12,500 47% 53% 5,000 2,350 Peace House 7,500 40% 4% 56% Scienceworks 25,250 50% 25% 25% 16,567 8,284 _.-THRIVE 26,000 100% - 15,567 - - Mulficultural Association 7,445 100% 2,500 - -ArtWork Enterprises,-Inc. 4,090- - - 75%-2,500 - - 4089R Total-Requested a "0€90 195,41(" Amount Available $ 125,410 _ Minimum Tourism AmountRequdeed - - - - - - - - - -$-8;917 City of Ashland Economic and Cultural Development Grant History GENERAL FUND FY 99.00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 #110 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted Economic and Cultural Development Grants $ 275,000 $ 386,600 $ 384,000 $ 387,000 $ 406,800 $ 445,600 $ 458,970 $ 504,650 $ 527,519 $ 508,333 Supported by Resolution No. # 1998-23 # 1998-23 If 2000-25 # 2000.25 # 2000-25 # 2004-32 # 200432 # 2004-32 #2007-08 #2007-08 Agency and Program Name Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Adopted Matlack $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ 2,500 $ - $5,000' $ . $ - $ - ArtNow - - - - - - 1,000 1,205 - - AMJork Enterprises _ - _ - _ - 2,500 2,500 Arts Council of Southern Oregon 3,000 3,600 3,000 3,000 3,500 1,500 3,000 2,381 - - Ashland Bed and Breakfast Network - - - - - - - - - 5,000 Ashland Community Theatre - 3,400 4,000 4,000 4,000 - - - - Ashland Gallery Association 6,100 5,000 2,500 2,000 2,500 5,000 10,500 16,000 16,000 11,000 Ballet Rogue 7,500 7,800 5,000 - 4,500 4,500 5,000 6,000 6,500 4,500 Chautauqua Poets and Writers Board - - - - - - - 5,000 4,000 2,500 Community Works - - - 8,000 - 7,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 - Dancing People Company - - - - - - - - 2,500 2,500 The Green Room - - - - - 3,000 - - - - Horizon Institute - - 1,000 2,000 1,600 - - - - - - The Jefferson Center - - - - - - - - 2,500 2,500 Kona" Nike Tdilo nn 5,000 - - Lihla Arts Guild of Oregon - - - - - 4,000 5,000 9,000 10,500 5,000 Lomakatsi - - - 1,000 Multi Cultural Association - - - - - - - 10,000 - 2,500 Nuwandan Gallery - - 2,000 - - - - 1,500 2,500 - Oregon Bed & Breakfast Guild - 1,500 - - - - - - Oregon Stage Works - - - - - - 6,000 5,000 7,500 4,500 Planned Parenthood- Teen Theater Program - - - - 1,500 - - - - - Rogue Opera - - - - - -2;500 -"2,600 3,250 - 2,500 3,000 8,000 6,500 7,000 10,500 7,000 Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation - - - - - - - 2,500 Rogue Valley Symphony- 3;500-4200 4;000 3;500 4;000 6.000_7,000_8,000_12,5006,710.__ ScienceWorks 4,500 7,500 12,000 15,000 16,000 18,500 16,567 S!"ou Singers 1,000 - 2,000 1,750 2,000 4,100 5,000 5,000 3,375 2,500 Southern Oregon Concert Band - - _ _ _ 2,500 So. OR Econ. Develop. Coalition - (Emigrant Lake Powwow) - - 3,000 2,000 - , - - - - - _SOU,Native AmedonStudiesProgram 2,500.._..._-3,000-_.__ . _ 2,500- Souhem Oregon Film d Video . 1,000 - - - - - Souhem Oregon Fide Society (Ashland Independent Film Festival - 5,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 8,500 14,000 16,000 21,999 19,566 Southern Oregon Historical Society - 3,600 - - - 2,143 7,500 - - Southern Oregon Repertory Singers - 1,000 . - - - - - 2,500 3,375 2,500 SOWAC 5,000 7,400 7,000 4,710 5,714 8,500 9,000 8,000 - - SLClair Productions - - - 1,000 2,000 4,000 3,500 4,000 5,000 4,000 THRIVE - - - - 3,714 6,500 6,745 11,000 15,000 15,567 Theater lkcewicasa - - - 1,000 - - - - - - Youth Symphony of Oregon 3,000 3,400 3,250 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 3,500 Subtotal 32,600 49,500 46,000 46,560 52,428 89,243 117,745 146,086 155,749 125,410 Ashland Chamber of Commerce 162,400 216,400 230,000 232,800 262,140 240,432 245,241 247,645 255,070 262,722 Oregon Shakespeare Festival 76,000 100,700 107,335 108,640 122,332 110,000 112,200 113,300 116,700 120,201 Subtotal 238,400 317,100 337,335 341,440 384,472 350,432 357,441 360,945 371,770 382,923 Total _ $ 271,000 $ 366,600 $ 383,335 $ 388,000 $ 436,900 $ 439,675 $ 475,186 $ 507,031 $ 527,519 $ 508,333 No lower in business. not funded G:V,wcdOUDGEPEmn Cururd D. Grm 0a4 H.WW C Deebpmnl Gra4 K." 6117rM 10.36 AM Pape 1 or1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.24.020 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE INCREASING THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX Annotated to show ds and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold thied4hfGugh and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, ORS 320.350(6) authorizes local governments to increase transient occupancy taxes provided certain limitations and restrictions are imposed on the funds collected; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland conducted two public forums, several public meetings and a public hearing , the later being on June 3, 2008 on the question of whether the City's seven percent (7%) transient occupancy tax should be increased, by what percentage and for what purpose; and WHEREAS, after due consideration of input from the public, staff and due deliberation, the City of Ashland finds it necessary and desirable to increase the City's transient occupancy tax by two percent (2%) to promote tourism, tourism-related facilities, economic development and other appropriate purposes consistent with the limitations in state law for use of such funds; and THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. AMC 4.24:020 is amended to read as follows: 4.24.020 Tax Imposed. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of seven (71%) nine 9% percent of the rent charged by the operator. Said tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City which is extinguished only by payment to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. The operator shall collect and record the tax into the record when rent is collected, if the operator keeps records on the cash basis of accounting, and when earned if the operator keeps records on the accrual accounting bases. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the Tax Administrator may require. that such tax shall be paid directly to the Tax Administrator. SECTION 2. CLASSIFICATION OF THE FEE. The tax specified in Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.24.020 as set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance is classified as not subject to the limits of section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. Ordinance No. Transient Occupancy Tax Amendment Page 1 of 2 The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE. Notwithstanding this amendment, the City ordinances in existence at the time any legal action for collection, enforcement or other purpose authorized or referenced in Chapter 4.24 [Transient Occupancy Tax] of the Ashland Municipal Code that was legally commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases and actions filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. SECTION 5. DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE. In accordance with Article 10, Section 3 of the Ashland City Charter, the City Council deems it advisable.to specify a delayed effective for this ordinance increasing the transient occupancy tax to nine percent. Accordingly, Section 1 of this Ordinance shall take effect on October 1, 2008. SECTION 6. CODIFICATION. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the Ashland Municipal Code and the word 'ordinance' may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, and typographical errors and cross-reference corrections, corrected by the City Recorder, provided however that Sections 2 thru 6, unincorporated Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions need not be codified.. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Ordinance No. Transient Occupancy Tax Amendment Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Resolution Changing the Duties and Responsibilities of the Municipal Audit Committee and Repealing Resolution 2003-07 Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: L,/ j Should Council make changes in the duties and responsibilities of the Municipal Audit Committee? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the attached resolution. Background: In 2003 Council approved changes to the Committee's compensation and voting responsibilities. Since then changes in audit standards and internal operations have warranted an update to the resolution, changing what positions can vote on issues and clarifying City Council's expectations for the committee. This issue was discussed at a Council Study Session on May 19th and the attached resolution is in keeping with that discussion. Related City Policies: Financial Management Policies Council Options: a. Choose to keep the Audit Committee in place as defined by Resolution 2003-07. b. Modify Audit Committee responsibilities and/or voting authority. Potential Motions: I make a motion to change the duties and responsibilities of the Audit committee per the attached resolution (as amended through discussion if necessary). Attachments: Draft resolution Resolution 2003-07 Council Communication dated May 19, 2008 Page 1 of I 061708 Audit Committee Responsibilities.CC.doc ~r, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CLARIFYING THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MUNICIPAL AUDIT COMMITTEE AND MAKING THE CITY RECORDER AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-07. RECITALS: A. The role and responsibilities of the Municipal Audit Committee were established in June 1991 pursuant to Resolution 91-16. The committee was re-established in 1995 with modified objectives and responsibilities as set forth in Resolution 95-24, 98-06 and 2003-07. Recent changes in audit requirements and internal operations create a need. to adjust the responsibilities of the committee and its members. B. The city council desires to reaffirm the expectations and composition of the committee, making the city recorder a non-voting member and allowing the mayor to serve as a voting member. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Committee Established. The Municipal Audit Committee is established and shall consist of five voting members. The committee may request the presence of any city official at its meetings. SECTION 2. Terms. Qualifications, Vacancies. A. Four voting members shall be appointed by the city council and shall consist of one council member or mayor, one budget committee member, and two citizens at large. The fifth member shall be the city recorder, a non-voting member. The terms of the council member or mayor and budget committee member shall be for one year each expiring on April 30 of each year; and the terms for the citizens at large shall be for three-year terms, expiring on April 30, or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. In such a case as both at large positions are filled simultaneously the terms shall be staggered for two and three years. B. In making the appointments, the council shall give preference to persons with accounting or auditing experience, background or expertise. C. Any committee member, other than the city recorder, who is absent, without prior permission from the chair, from two or more meetings in a one-year period shall be considered no longer active and the position vacant, and a new person shall be appointed to complete the term. SECTION 3. Quorum and Rules. Three voting members shall constitute a quorum. The committee shall establish rules for its meetings and shall meet at least semi-annually (once prior to the onsite audit and once to receive the annual report) and at such other times as may be necessary. SECTION 4. Responsibilities. The committee shall be responsible to: A. Recommend to the council an independent firm of certified public accountants, qualified to perform the annual audit of the city. B. Analyze and report to the council significant findings in the annual audit report and make recommendations regarding such findings. C. Make recommendations, if any, to the council regarding the following financial documents: 1. Annual financial statements, 2. Management letter submitted by the independent auditor, 3. Response to management letter submitted by city staff, and 4. Financial Management Policies. D. Review component unit information as necessary in relation to the city's annual financial report and recommendation(s) to be made to council. E. Perform similar duties for the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission as authorized by the Commission. SECTION 5. Reports. The committee shall submit copies of minutes of its meetings to the council. Reports or recommendations of the committee shall be considered advisory in nature and shall not be binding on the mayor or city council or Parks Commission. SECTION 6. Repeal. Resolution No. 2003-07 is repealed. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2008, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 12008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CLARIFYING THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MUNICIPAL AUDIT COMMITTEE AND MAKING THE CITY RECORDER AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-07. RECITALS: A. The role and responsibilities of the Municipal Audit Committee were established in June 1991 pursuant to Resolution 91-16. The committee was re-established in 1995 with modified objectives and responsibilities as set forth in Resolution 95-24, 98-06 and 2003-07. Recent changes in audit requirements and internal operations create a need to adjust the responsibilities of the committee and its members. B. The city council desires to reaffirm the expectations and composition of the committee, making the city recorder a non-voting member and allowing the mayor to serve as a voting member. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Committee Established. The Municipal Audit Committee is established and shall consist of five four voting members. The committee may request the presence of any city official at its meetings. SECTION 2. Terms. Qualifications. Vacancies. A. Four voting members shall be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by the city council and shall consist of one council member or mayor, one budget committee member, and two citizens at large. The fifth member shall be the city recorder, a non-voting member. The terms of the council member or mayor and budget committee member shall be for one year each expiring on April 30 of each year; and the terms for the citizens at large shall be for three-year terms, expiring on April 30, or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. In such a case as both at large positions are filled simultaneously the terms shall be staggered for two and three years. B. In making the appointments, the council shall give preference to persons with accounting or auditing experience, background or expertise. C. Any committee member, other than the city recorder, who is absent, without prior permission from the chair, from two or more meetings in a one-year period shall be considered no longer active and the position vacant, and a new person shall be appointed to complete the term. SECTION 3. Quorum and Rules. Three voting members shall constitute a quorum. The committee shall establish rules for its meetings and shall meet at least semi-annually RESOLUTION NO. (,QW 3 'O7 A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE COMPOSITION OF THE MUNICIPAL AUDIT COMMITTEE BY MAKING THE CITY RECORDER A VOTING MEMBER, ALLOWING THE MAYOR AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-06. RECITALS: A. The role and responsibilities of the Municipal Audit Committee were established in June 1991 pursuant to Resolution 91-16. The committee was re-established in 1995 with modified objectives and responsibilities as set forth in Resolution 95-24 and 98-06. B. The city council desires to modify the composition of the committee by making the city recorder a voting member and allowing the mayor to serve as a voting member. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Committee Established. The Municipal Audit Committee is established and shall consist of five voting members. The committee may request the presence of any city official at its meetings. SECTION 2. Terms, Qualifications. Vacancies. A. Four voting members shall be appointed by the city council and shall consist of one council member or mayor, one budget committee member, and two citizens at large. The fifth voting member shall be the City Recorder. The terms of the council member or mayor and budget committee member shall be for one-year each expiring on April 30 of each year; and the terms for the citizens at large shall be for three-year terms, expiring on April 30, or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified; provided that in the first instance the terms of the initial citizen- at-large members shall be staggered for two and three years. B. In making the appointments, the council shall give preference to persons with accounting or auditing experience, background or expertise. C. Any committee member, other than the city recorder, who is absent, without prior permission from the committee chair, from two or more meetings in a one-year period shall be considered no longer active and the position vacant, and a new person shall be appointed to complete the term. SECTION 3. Quorum and Rules. Three voting members shall constitute a quorum. The committee shall establish rules for its meetings and shall meet at least semi- annually and at such other times as may be necessary. SECTION 4. Responsibilities. The committee shall be responsible to: A. Recommend to the council an independent firm of certified public accountants to perform the annual audit of the city. B. Analyze and report to the council significant findings in the annual audit report and make recommendations regarding such findings. C. Make recommendations, if any, to the council regarding the following financial documents: 1. Annual financial statements, 2. Management letter submitted by the independent auditor, and 3. Response to management letter submitted by city staff. SECTION 5. Reports. The committee shall submit copies of minutes of its meetings to the council. Reports or recommendations of the committee shall be considered advisory in nature and shall not be binding on the mayor or city council. SECTION 6. Reoeal. Resolution No. 98-06 is repealed. This resolution was read by itle only in accordanc` with As gland Municipal Code § 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOP D this day of_ 2003. zaarbara Christensen, Ctty Recorder M SIGNED and APPROVED this day of I I(l 6A-), 2003. lsn~~~ Alan DeBoer, Mayor sewed a to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Study Session - Discussion of Internal Issues Raised by the Audit Report Meeting Date: May 19, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 45 minutes Question: Should Council make changes in the use of the Municipal Audit Committee, Financial Management Policies and/or internal controls consistent with the auditor comments and staff recommendations? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council consider the information presented and: 1. Take steps to affirm or revise Resolution 2003-07, and 2. Identify the City representative that will routinely communicate with the auditor regarding scope and timing of work as well as negotiate and sign off on representations for the City. 3. Schedule an additional study session to discuss the Financial Management Policies and progress on internal controls. 4. Request that the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission decide similar issues for their district. Background: Staff submitted the financial report, Audit Committee recommendation and supporting information to Council on November 20, 2007. The packet is attached omitting another copy of the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR). The CAFR is available online. As staff explained last November, even though the FY 2006-2007 audit went well, there are important issues to be resolved by the City and the Parks Commission for subsequent reviews to be as successful. Staff has worked on operational issues and Council action is needed to resolve the higher level, policy questions. The important audit concepts in this and future reviews are: A. Communicating Internal Audit Control Related Matters Identified in an Audit - Statement of Auditing Standards No. 112 (SAS 112) B. The Auditor's Communication with Those Charged with Governance - Statement of Auditing Standards No. 114 (SAS 114) C. The Risk Assessment Suite - Statements of Auditing Standards No. 104 - 111 (SAS 104-111) To meet all of these new requirements, the City Council and P&R Commission must clarify the governing board's expectations for the audit, management's role and desired communication protocol for the auditor. Page] of S 061708 Audit Committee Responsibilites.atch1doc C I T Y OF ASHLAND Last year's management letters from the auditor to the City and Parks explained the first standard (SAS 112) is an existing requirement and the second (SAS 114) and third (SAS 104-111) standards will be applicable in future years. Discussion between the auditor, committee and staff revealed that these "new" standards are partly due to changes in accounting and auditing standards initiated by legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley laws which respond to accounting cases like the Enron scandals. These changes tighten the rules which should result in better accounting practices safeguarding municipal assets. One result of these new standards is the potential for more comments from the auditor in the annual review and need for more work by accounting staff to avoid or to "clear" comments made by the auditor. All departments of the two agencies will be impacted by these requirements, especially Administrative Services/Finance and the City Recorder's office. A. Communicating Internal Control Related Matters Identified in an Audit: This occurs when a required internal control is insufficient enough to cause the auditor to communicate the deficiency to someone in authority. Secondary is how and to whom the auditor communicates. Auditors have reviewed internal controls for many years and reported upon them in the management letter. For example, the previous management letter from the auditor to the City (FY 2005-2006's audit) included two new comments and three that were unresolved from the prior year. A copy of staff's responses to this report and the current report are attached and online. Please note: No reportable conditions existed for the Parks Commission for FY 2005-2006 Anything from the prior years had been cleared by the Parks and City's accounting staff. In prior years the auditors examined items they felt necessary to render an opinion and reported as appropriate. SAS 112 requires reviewing specific items including written procedures and policies, verifying conformance. SAS 112 also prohibits the auditor from using the past practice of relying on observed controls, even if the observation confirmed enhanced internal controls beyond what was or wasn't written. Action being taken: Administrative Services, City Recorder and Information Technology staff are writing and updating internal controls in all identified areas to better satisfy this audit comment. However, it is likely that this comment will not be fully cleared for FY 2007-2008. New comments, and those not cleared from prior years, will be reported to the City via the Management Letter from the auditor. B. The Auditor's Communication with Those Charged with Governance: Today there is no clear direction for the auditor to follow regarding (a) when to communicate with Mayor and Council and the City Administrator and (b) what authority the Committee has, if any, over the Parks & Recreation audit and financial report. The structure of the Audit Committee also raises questions for the City itself. The City of Ashland has been progressive by using an Audit Committee since 1991. Few other Oregon communities do this. The charge to the committee per Resolution 2003-07 is to: Page 2 of 5 061708 Audit Committee Responsibilites.atch1doc 11VAL&A CITY OF ASHLAND • Recommend to Council an independent firm of certified public accountants to perform the annual audit of the city. • Analyze and report to the Council significant findings in the annual audit report and make recommendations regarding such findings. • Make recommendation, if any, to the council regarding the following financial documents: annual financial statements, management letter submitted by the independent auditor, and response to management letter. submitted by city staff. The heightened requirements of SAS 112 require Council to review what authority is delegated to the committee in dealing with internal control problem resolution. SAS 114 guides the auditor on matters to be communicated openly and candidly to those charged with governance. Conversely, SAS 114 requires that the City spell out to whom the auditor must communicate (regardless of any particular issue). In his comments, the auditor wrote that SAS 114 goes beyond SAS 61 - Communicating with Audit Committees in that it: • Describes the principal purposes of communication with those charged with governance and stresses the importance of effective two-way communication. • Requires the auditor to determine the appropriate person(s) in the entity's governance structure with whom to communicate particular matters. That person may vary depending on the nature of the matter to be communicated. • Recognizes the diversity in governance structures among entities (including the existence of audit committees or other subgroups charged with governance) and encourages the use of professional judgment in deciding with whom to communicate particular matters. • Recognizes the unique considerations for communicating with those charged with governance when all of those charged with governance are involved in managing the entity, which may be the case with some small entities. • Adds requirements to communicate: • An overview of the planned scope and timing of the audit. • Representations the auditor is requesting from management. • Provides additional guidance on the communication process, including the forms and timing of communication. Significant findings from the audit should be in writing when, in the auditor's profession judgment; oral communication would not be adequate. Other communications may be oral or in writing, • Requires the auditor to evaluate the adequacy of the two-way communication between the auditor and those charged with governance. • Establishes a requirement to document required communications with those charged with governance. Resolution 2003-07 changed voting authority on the Committee to permit all five members (Mayor or Council member, City Recorder, appointed member from the budget committee and two citizens at large) to vote while keeping reports and recommendations from the committee as advisory in nature. This change, plus the duties identified for the City Recorder in the Charter, plus the introduction of more cash handling as part of passport services and the new standards, prompted the auditor to include the following in the latest management report: In order to be in compliance with these new auditing standards the auditors and the City Council needs to evaluate the audit oversight committee for any issues that may come up. The City has a unique Page 3 of 5 061708 Audit Committee Responsibilites.atch1doc ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND situation in that the City Recorder is an elected official, a voting member of the audit committee as well as part of accounting process at the City. We recommend that the Council discuss this issue and re- affirm their position on whether or not the City Recorder be a voting member on the audit committee. We believe that as long as the City Council understands the unique nature of the City Recorder's position that whatever decision is made will be acceptable. City Recorder participation on the Committee is not in question. The above indicates that Council could reaffirm the existing Resolution 2003-07, not making any changes, and the auditor would use his best judgment for when to bypass the committee because of its structure and the nature of the issue. Because of the "unique" condition identified by the auditor, staff believes Council should review this issue. As a member of the Committee the City Recorder participates in the discussion of the audit, accounting standards, internal controls and the management letter and votes on acceptance and recommendations to Council. Issues may include cash and investment management, internal controls, records management, budget and financial reporting compliance. Most of these relate to the duties of the City Recorder office in that the City Recorder is also the City's treasurer, manages cash and investments, oversees banking services, is the primary check signer and provides services that require receipting cash. Internal controls compliance will be challenging with that many levels of participation. Voting on audit issues may create a conflict. Action needed: Council should review this information and decide: 1. What changes, if any, Council wants for the Audit Committee, and 2. What direction is to be given to the auditor for communicating with Mayor and Council, the Audit Committee and the City Administrator. The primary contact outside of the scope identified in Resolution 2003-07 could be the City Administrator. Finally, as part of Communications is the role the City's Audit Committee plays with the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission (APRC). Interaction between the Committee, the district and the City has varied over years. APRC is a component unit of the City thus the Parks annual financial report is a part of the City's. APRC's compliance with required accounting standards can affect the City's conformance to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). However, there is no clear direction in writing from either agency as to the authority delegated to the audit committee, expectations relating to scope of the audit or required communication after the review with the Commission, Council or Parks Director. The Board of Commissioners, as the body responsible for governance of the district, will need to address these issues to provide the auditor with clear direction. Action needed: None by Mayor and Council beyond recommending resolution of this issue to APRC. Until resolved the default will be to communicate with the chief executive of the elected board. C. The Risk Assessment Suite - Statements of Auditing Standards: Risk assessment incorporates eight statements that direct the auditor in performing the audit and attesting to the "fairness" of the financial reports. In some cases it requires the auditor to evaluate the Page 4 of 5 061708 Audit Committee Responsibilites.atch1doc CITY OF ASHLAND susceptibility of the financial report down to the line item or balance sheet account in order to render an opinion. The suite will play a bigger role as part of the audit beginning with this next year and, in conjunction with the other requirements, result in more costly annual audits for compliance. The result of this level of evaluation could then fall into the process of communication addressed above. Action needed: None at this time. Needed action may be identified in the coming audit or as part of staffs review of internal controls. Related City Policies: Financial Management Policies Council Options: a. Choose to keep the Audit Committee in place as defined by Resolution 2003-07. b. Modify Audit Committee responsibilities and/or voting authority in Resolution 2003-07. c. Determine whether the Mayor, the City Administrator, the Finance Director or someone else will be the primary contact and sign representation letters with the auditor. d. Direct staff to schedule a study session to discuss the existence and delegated authority to the Audit Committee. e. Direct staff to bring back a proposed resolution to correct for the audit comments. Potential Motions: This is a study session so no formal action can be taken but staff would like consensus on how to proceed. Attachments: FY 2006-2007 Staff Responses to Management Letter FY 2006-2007 Management Letter FY 2005-2006 Staff Responses Management Letter October 29, 2007 Audit Committee report to City Council Resolution 2003-07 regarding Ashland's Municipal Audit Committee Page 5 of 5 061708 Audit Committee Responsibilites.atch1doc CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Second Reading: Arterial Setback Ordinance Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: City Attorney's Offi e E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Community Devel ment Secondary Contact: Maria Harris Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 5 minutes / Ordinance Question: Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of the following ordinance, and approve adoption of the ordinance? AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SPECIAL [ARTERIAL] SETBACKS AND ASSOCIATED STREET STANDARDS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 2836 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of Second Reading by title only, reading of changes from first reading in full and adoption of the Ordinance. Background: Attached please find a revised ordinance reflecting changes recommended by legal and planning staff. Related City Policies: City Charter Article 10, Section 3. Site Design and Use Standards. Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Council Options: (1) Conduct Second Reading with changes recommended by staff read in full. (2) Conduct Second Reading with changes from June 3, 2008 Council Communication. (3) Do not conduct second reading. Potential Motions: Staff Recommendation Staff. [Conduct Second Reading by Title only] Staff reads the following new language in full: In Section 2, /Page 21 revise the date as follows: K. Street Standards. All standards under 18.88.050 and all All standards in the City of Ashland Street Standards Handbook as adopted in Ordinance 2836 and as amended by Ordinance o [dune 17, 20081 are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. ids under48:$8.5 . Page I 061708 Arterial Setback Ordinance 2nd read.CC.doc CITY OF ASHLAND In SECTION 3, [Page 31 revise sidewalk width for Neighborhood Collector, Commercial in Table 1: City of Ashland Street Design Standards Parallel Parking One Side 8'-10' z Parallel Parking Both Sides g8'-10' z Diagonal Parking One Side 681-161F2 j-j Diagonal Parking Both Sides 8 0,2 In SECTION 3, [Page 31 add new sentences to the end Note I to Table 1: City of Ashland Street Design Standards r 7- 8' landscape parkrow shall be installed in residential areas, a 5' hardscape parkrow with tree wells shall be used installed in commercial areas. In SECTION 3, [Page 41 add a new Note 4 to Table 1: City of Ashland Street Design Standards WA '11'fin stun an iii cis in t%re Carticti rf =9sliland treet~-Desinrr Standards' renresent nrmimum stundards`rrtr~rant~es, fort/:e imnrovc~mentsshown. Trhe upurova/ uutlrority may r approve.aimension~withrrrxasp'ecrTerl raugbused upon intensitp of lund nse, existing and Ejected traffic iuriluedesirian vohrmesormEwhen xsunnorted thrortg/t other apnlieahle approval stand ru rls. ..The atitiroval authorifiv-»eat apnrovezdirnensions aud.run, greater x" a gt aa';+u th 'nenxr,`~`~-~ w anthoses0j'herryolurrteered9b h aDUhim~t In SECTION 4, [Page 41 add new sentences to the end of the first paragraph under Street Design Standards: Street Design Standards A description of street design standards for each street classification follows. For an abbreviated presentation of the street right-of-way standards, see Table 1. All elements listed are required unless specifically noted. 2,11'' imensions and ranees in the Cft- of Ashland Street Design St ndardsil eC present minimum standards or ranEes for the improvements shown. The approval ati"thoeh° maV approve a dimension sr,ithin a specified ranee based upon mtensrh of land useesrstm>' and p ojected traffic and pedeshlian volumes or when Supported thrOUeh iotfler appllCahle apprOS,al Standards. The appti0.y31 GuthOr(n' mat: °~~~a+ Pmn+ wruuwt :wwn approve dimensions anaran"des'ereater.than~thos°'eshow~`°n nhen volunteered bs the x applicant: In SECTION 4, [Page 101 delete the inadvertently added language for Commercial Neighborhood Collector Parkrow: Page 2 061708 Arterial Setback Ordinance 2nd read.CC.doc Imo, CITY OF ASHLAND Commercial Neighborhood Collector Parkrow: 7' 8' on both sides. HaMseape parkromtwith street trees plante wens shall be used in commer-eial areas. i _,o an.iv~cvpe BdrkrBN:Shflll-bf~=inStllll2d In=resm~arrnrrnrcaS: +A n ~ C4:•n:.' 4~T'-nn C4n:."1:: r~ ~~tl..:'~'' 47."~nC.4~, `llnic.:.`..~n~"l.~.~~a 7~,~:; ~C t4w~:z:mn~l~rv~~:"] In SECTION 4, /Page 101 revise the sidewalk standard as follows: Commercial Neighborhood Collector Sidewalks side- 8f- both sides In SECTION 5, E.6 /Page 151 delete the highlighted sentence concerning structural soils: Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surf~a(c~e paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least TO 25 square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Spnee between the tree and . eh hard . sn e be eevered b grates, permeable non per-manent hard sur-foees sueh as br-ieks on son > Tree wells shall be covered by tree grates in accordance with city specifications. 4 Potential Motions: Move to approve second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance Concerning Special [Arterial] Setbacks and Associated Street Standards adopted in Ordinance 2836, with changes read in full. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Page 3 061708 Arterial Setback Ordinance 2nd read.CC.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SPECIAL [ARTERIAL] SETBACKS AND ASSOCIATED STREET STANDARDS ADOPTED-IN ORDINANCE 2836 Annotated to show dpletio s and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold Uned-thfGugh and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660. Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293,531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975; and ' WHEREAS, Section 18.68.050 of the City of Ashland Municipal Code currently provides for a special 20 foot setback on Arterial Streets; and WHEREAS, Planning staff sent notice to the DLCD in accordance with ORS 197.610 on February 22, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a duly advertised hearing on April 8, 2008 and recommended approval of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed amendment at a duly advertised hearing on May 20, 2008 and following review of the staff report, and after considering public input and the evidence in the record as a whole, the Council conducted first reading of the Ordinance and moved the Ordinance to Second Reading; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008 the City Council conducted Second Reading of the Ordinance and approved adoption of the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to modify this setback as regards certain arterial streets; namely Lithia Way, and THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 1 of 15 SECTION 1. Section 18.68.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 18.68.050Arterial Street Special Setback Requirements. To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street. Street Setback East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district and properties abutting Lithia Way in the C-1 district. SECTION 2. Section 18.88.020. K [Definitions - Street Standards] of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: K. Street Standards. All standards under 18.88.050 and all AN standards in the City of Ashland Street Standards Handbook as adopted in Ordinance 2836 and as amended by Ordinance June 17.2008 are specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. and standards under 18.88.050, SECTION 3. The Ashland Street Standards Handbook, Table 1 on page 20, as adopted by Ordinance 2836 is hereby amended to read as follows: 5 =8'' Table 1: City of Ashland Street Design Standards WITHIN CURB-TO-CURB AREA TYPE OF STREET ACT R.O.W. CURB-TO- MOTOR MEDIAN BIKE PARK- CURB PARK. DE - WIDTH CURB VEHICLE AND/OR LANES ING ROW ALKS PAVEMENT TRAVEL CENTER WIDTH LANES TURN LANE on on on on both both both both j sides sides sides sides 2-Lane Boulevard 8,000 to 61'47' 30' if' none tat 6' In 8' 8' 75'-0'1 6'-10" each bays XI-ane Boulevard 20,000 72-99' 46' 1/' 12' Iat6' in 8' 6' 75=8' 6'-10iP each bays bLane Boulevard ACT 95-121' 68' if' 12' tat 6' in 8' 6' 75'-8" 6'-10iP each bays 2-Lane Avenue 3,000 to 591-06' 32V7' 101-10.5' none tat 6' in 6' 6' 75'-8` 6'-10i2 Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 2 of 15 each bays 10,000 3-Lane Avenue ADT 70.5= 43.5''/ S' 10140.5' 11.5' tat 6' in 8' 6• 3_5'-8'' 6'-lo" 97.5' each bays Neighborhood Collector, Residential 1,500 to NA NA' No Parking 5,000 49'-51' 22' 11' none 6' 8' 51-6' Parking One Side ADT 50'-56' 2527' 91-10' one 7' 6' 7'-8' 51-6' lane Parking Both Sides 57'-63' 211-34' 91-10' two 7' 6' 7'-e' 514' lanes Neighborhood Collector, ` Commercial Parallel Parking One Side 55-65' 28' 10' ones' 6' 15'-8" &-10'' lane Parallel Packing Both Sides 63'-73' 26' 10' two 8' 6' 75'4" a-10'' lanes Diagonal Parking One Side 65'-74' 37' 10' one 6" 35'-8', a-10iP 17' lane Diagonal Parking Both Sides 81'-91' 50' 10' Mro 6- 75'-8" W-10'' 17 lanes Neighborhood Smarr, Residential less NA NAB than Parking One Side 1,500 47'-51' 11' 15' one 7' 6' 7'-0' 5'-6' Queuing lane Parking Both Sides ADT 111-1I' 50'-57' 25'-28' Quouing two 7' 6- 7'-8' Vol lanes Alley NA 16' 12'paved NA NA NA none none none none width, 2' strips on both sides Mulg-USe Path N NA NA none none noire none width, 2'-8' strips cvt both sides ' hard scape parkrow with tree welts shall be used in commercial areas 6'sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, e'40'sidewalk shall be installed in commercial areas bike Ian" are generally not needed on low volume (less than 2,000 ADn and/or low travel speed (Less Nan 25mph) sheet 7- 8' landscape parkrow shall be installed in residential areas. 5' hardscape parkrow with tree wells shall be use installed in commercial areas. 2 6' sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, 8'-10' sidewalk shall be installed in commercial areas. A 10'sidewalk shall be required on Boulevards (arterial) streets in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. 3 bike lanes are generally not needed on low volume (less than 3,000 ADT) and/or low travel speed (Less than 25mph) streets Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 3 of 15 i dimensions and ran es in the Gi of Ashland Street Uesi n Standard oe resendrs or rart es for the im rovements shro I autho , a a rov a dim sign wi se u tensi of land use exisfin and ro'ected traffic and edestrian volumes or h n su orted throe h other a licable a roval standards. Th a ro..a uthori ma. a rov. dimension and ran es neater than those show whe .olunteered b the a lieartf SECTION 4. The Ashland Street Standards Handbook, Street Design Standards, (pages 21 to 30), as adopted by Ordinance 2836, are hereby amended to read as follows: Street Design Standards A description of street design standards for each street classification follows. For an abbreviated presentation of the street right-of-way standards, see Table 1. All elements listed are required unless specifically noted. A 1 dimensions and ran a in he ;it o _ ehland IJ.esi n Standards re resen minimum standard o ran es for t m rovements shown. Tihe a rovai authont ma. a rove a dimension within a p . iti d i ng I5 ed up n Intensity f land use. exisstin and proms raffle nd edestria volumes or when su ooted throe h other a licable a nova standards. Tihe approval authority may approve dime sions and ranges reate, th n those shown when volunteered b. the applicant Approval Standards: New and reconstructed streets shall conform to the following design standards. Boulevard Boulevards are major thoroughfares filled with both human and vehicular activity. Design should provide an environment where walking, bicycling, using transit and driving are equally convenient and should facilitate the boulevard's use as a public space. Design should start with the assumption that the busy nature of a boulevard is a positive factor and incorporate it to enhance the street scape and setting. A 2-lane, 3- lane, or 5-lane configuration can be used depending on the number of trips generated by surrounding existing and future land uses. Street Function: Provide access to major urban activity centers and provide connections to regional traffic ways such as Interstate 5. Traffic without a destination in Ashland should be encouraged to use regional traffic ways and discouraged from using boulevards. Connectivity: Connects neighborhoods to urban activity centers and to regional traffic ways such as Interstate 5. Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 4 of 15 Average Daily Traffic: 8,000 - 30,000 motor vehicle trips per day Managed Speed: 25 mph - 35 mph Right-of-Way Width: • 61'- 87' for 2-Lane • 73' - 99' for 3-1-ane • 95'- 121' for 5-Lane Curb-to-Curb Width: . 34' for 2-Lane . 46' for 3-Lane • 68' for 5-Lane Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes: • Two 11' travel lanes for 2-Lane • Two 11' travel lanes, one 12' median/center turn lane for 3-Lane • Four 11' travel lanes, one 12' median/center turn lane for 5-Lane Bike Lanes: Two 6' bike lanes, one on each side of the street moving in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Parking: In 8'- 9' bays Curb and Gutter: Yes 6" vertical/barrier curb Parkrow: ' tFees planted in wells shall be used in reFnmeFGial areas. • 7'- 8' landscape Parkrow shall be installed in residential areas. Street trees shall be planted in the parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards. . 5' hardscape parkrow shall be used in commercial areas with on-street parking and where the street corridor has or will have a hardscape parkrow in place. Landscape parkrows may be appropriate in some commercial areas without on-street parking, or where the overall design concept for the street corridor includes a landscape parkrow. The minimum width of a landscaped parkrow in commercial areas shall be 7'. Street trees shall be planted in the Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 5 of 15 parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards. Sidewalks: 6' on both sides in residential areas, 8' ' on both Ride,; in nernmeMial aFeas • 6' on both sides in residential areas. . 8'- 10'on both sides in commercial areas. A 10' sidewalk shall be required on Boulevards in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. Avenue Avenues provide concentrated pedestrian, bicycle, transit and motor vehicle access from neighborhoods to neighborhood activity centers and boulevards. Avenues are similar to boulevards, but are designed on a smaller scale. Design should provide an environment where walking, bicycling, using transit and driving are equally convenient and should facilitate the avenue's use as a public space. A 2-lane, or 3-lane configuration can be used depending on the number of trips generated by surrounding existing and future land uses. Street Function: Provide access from neighborhoods to neighborhood activity centers and boulevards. Connectivity: Connects neighborhoods to neighborhood activity centers and boulevards. Average Daily Traffic: 3,000 - 10,000 motor vehicle trips per day Managed Speed: 20 mph - 25 mph Right-of-Way Width: . 59' - 86' for 2-Lane • 70.5'- 97.5' for 3-1-ane Curb-to-Curb Width: . 32'- 33' for 2-Lane • 43.5'- 44.5' for 3-Lane Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes: • Two 10'- 10.5' travel lanes for 2-Lane • Two 10' - 10.5' travel lanes, one 11.5' median/center turn lane for 3-1-ane Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 6 of 1S Bike Lanes: Two 6' bike lanes, one on each side of the street moving in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic Parking: In 8'- 9' bays Curb and Gutter: Yes, 6" vertical/barrier curb ar row: mdes- with •rea 7 8oa-, b •~,ti r s~r u .ard Qs~Pe-Pa~~ ::~et trees planted ells shall be used al areas. • 7'- 8' landscape parkrow shall be installed in residential areas. Street trees shall be planted in the parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards. • 5' hardscape parkrow shall be used in commercial areas with on-street parking and where the street corridor has or will have a hardscape parkrow in place. Landscape parkrows may be appropriate in some commercial areas without on-street parking, or where the overall design concept for the street corridor includes a landscape parkrow. The minimum width of a landscaped parkrow in commercial areas shall be 7'. Street trees shall be planted in the parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards. Sidewalks: Won both sides in resident+alareas, ' if" nn hnth • 6' on both sides in residential areas. • 8'- 10' on both sides in commercial areas. Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collectors provide access to neighborhood cores and gather traffic from various parts of the neighborhood and distribute it to the major street system. Different configurations with several on-street parking options are provided for residential and commercial areas. Residential Neighborhood Collector Street Function: Provide access in and out of the neighborhood. Connectivity: Collects traffic from within residential areas and connects these areas with the major street network. Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 7 of 15 Average Daily Traffic: 1,500 to 5,000 motor vehicle trips per day Managed Speed: 15 mph - 20 mph Right-of-Way Width: . 49'- 51' for No On-Street Parking • 50'- 56' for Parking One Side • 57'- 63' for Parking Both Sides Curb-to-Curb Width: . 22' for No On-Street Parking • 25'- 27' for Parking One Side • 32'- 34' for Parking Both Sides Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes: . Two 11' travel lanes for No On-Street Parking • Two 9'- 10' travel lanes' for Parking One Side and Parking Both Sides Bike Lanes: Generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed streets. If motor vehicle trips per day exceed 3,000, and/or actual motor vehicle travel speeds exceed 25 mph, a bike lane shall be required. Parking: . One 7' lane for Parking One Side . Two 7' lanes for Parking Both Sides Parking may be provided in 7' bays rather than a continuous on-street parking lane. Curb and Gutter: Yes, 6" vertical/barrier curb Parkrow: • 8' parkrow on both sides for No On-Street Parking 7' - 8' parkrows on both sides for Parking One and Both Sides Sidewalks: 5'- 6' on both sides, use 6' in high pedestrian volume areas with frequent 2-way foot traffic Commercial Neighborhood Collector Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 8 of 15 Street Function: Provide access in and out of neighborhoods and to neighborhood core with shopping and services. Connectivity: Collects traffic from within residential areas. Provides neighborhood shopping opportunities and connects these areas with the major street network. Average Daily Traffic: 1,500 to 5,000 motor vehicle trips per day Managed Speed: 15 mph - 20 mph Right-of-Way Width: . 55'- 65' for Parallel Parking One Side • 63'- 73' for Parallel Parking Both Sides . 65'- 74' for Diagonal Parking One Side • 81'- 91' for Diagonal Parking Both Sides Curb-to-Curb Width: . 28' for Parallel Parking One Side • 36' for Parallel Parking Both Sides • 37' for Diagonal Parking One Side • 54' for Diagonal Parking Both Sides Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes: Two 10' travel lanes Bike Lanes: Generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed streets. If motor vehicle trips per day exceed 3,000, and/or actual motor vehicle travel speeds exceed 25 mph, a bike lane may be needed. Parking: . One 8' lane for Parallel Parking One Side . Two 8' lanes for Parallel Parking Both Sides • One 17' lanes for Diagonal Parking One Side • Two 17' lanes for Diagonal Parking Both Sides Parking may be provided in 7' bays rather than a continuous on-street parking lane. Curb and Gutter: Yes, 6" vertical/barrier curb Parkrow: ' tFees planted in wells shall be used in GeMmeFG;al areas. Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 9 of 15 5' hardscape parkrow shall be used in commercial areas with on-street parking and where the street corridor has or will have a hardscape parkrow in place. Landscape parkrows may be appropriate in some commercial areas without on-street parking, or where the overall design concept for the street corridor includes a landscape parkrow. The minimum width of a landscaped parkrow in commercial areas shall be 7'. Street trees shall be planted in the parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards. Sidewalks: ITRI a 8' - T0' on both side I Neighborhood Street Neighborhood Streets provide access to individual residential units and neighborhood commercial areas. Different configurations with several on-street parking options are provided for residential and commercial areas. Neighborhood Street: For use in the following single-family residential zones - WR (Woodland Residential), RR - 1 and RR -.5 (Low Density Residential, and R-1-3.5, R-1-5, R-1-7.5 and R-1-10 (Single- Family Residential) unless specifically noted. Street Function: Provide access to individual residential units and commercial areas. Connectivity: Connects to higher order streets. Average Daily Traffic: 1,500 or less motor vehicle trips per day Managed Speed: 10 mph - 20 mph Right-of-Way Width: . 47'- 51' for Parking One Side • 50'- 57' for Parking Both Sides Curb-to-Curb Width: • 22' for Parking One Side • 25'- 28' for Parking Both Sides Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 10 of 15 Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes: • One 15' queuing lane for Parking One Side . One 11' queuing lane for Parking Both Sides in the R-1 zone, One 14' queuing lane for Parking Both Sides in higher density residential areas (i.e. R-1-3.5, R-2 and R- 3) On local residential streets with adequate off-street parking, a single 14' wide traffic lane may be permitted for both directions of vehicle traffic. The single traffic lane is intended to create a "queuing street" such that when opposing vehicles meet, one of the vehicles must yield by pulling into a vacant portion of the adjacent parking lane. This queuing effect has been found to be an effective and safe method to reduce speeds and non-local traffic. Bike Lanes: Generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed streets. Parking: . One 7' lane for Parking One Side • Two 7' lanes for Parking Both Sides Parking may be provided in 7' bays rather than a continuous on-street parking lane. Curb and Gutter: Yes, 6" vertical/barrier curb Parkrow: . 8' parkrow in residential areas on both sides for No On- Street Parking. Street trees shall be planted in the parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards. 7' - 8' parkrows in residential areas on both sides for Parking One and Both Sides. Street trees shall be plated in the parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards. • 5' hardscape parkrow shall be used in commercial areas with on-street parking and where the street corridor has or will have a hardscape parkrow in place. Landscape Parkrows may be appropriate in some commercial areas without on-street parking, or where the overall design concept for the street corridor includes a landscape parkrow. The minimum width of a landscaped parkrow in commercial areas shall be 7'. Street trees shall be planted in the parkrow in accordance with the Street Tree Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards. Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 11 of 15 Sidewalks: 5'- 6' on both sides, use 6' in high pedestrian volume areas with frequent 2-way foot traffic Alley The alley is a semi-public neighborhood space that provides access via the rear of the property. The use of alleys eliminates the need for front yard driveways and provides the opportunity for a more positive front yard street scape, allows the street located adjacent to the front of properties to be designed using a narrow width with limited on-street parking, and creates the opportunity for the use of narrower lots to increase residential densities. Alleys are appropriate in all residential areas and in some commercial areas for business frontage. Alleys provide access and delivery depending on the circulation pattern of the area. Street Function: Provide rear yard access and delivery to individual residential and commercial properties, and an alternative utility placement area. Connectivity: Connects to all types of streets. Average Daily Traffic: Not applicable Managed Speed: Not applicable, motor vehicle travel speeds should be below 10 mph Right-of-Way Width: 16' Pavement Width: 12' with 2' graveled or planted strips on side Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes: Not applicable Bike Lanes: Not applicable, bicyclists can easily negotiate these low use areas Parking: No parking within the right-of-way Curb and Gutter: Not curb, use inverse crown Parkrow: Not applicable Sidewalks: Not applicable, pedestrians can easily negotiate these low use areas Multi-use Path Multi-use paths are off-street facilities used primarily for walking and bicycling. These paths can be relatively short connections between neighborhoods (neighborhood connections), or longer paths adjacent to rivers, creeks, railroad tracks and open space. Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 12 of 15 i Function: For pedestrians and bicyclists, provide short connections between destinations and longer paths in situations where a similar route is not provided on the street network. Connectivity: Enhances route options and shorten distances traveled for pedestrians and bicyclists. Right-of-Way Width: 12'- 18' Pavement Width: 6' - 10' with 2' - 4' graveled or planted strips on side Curb and Gutter: No curb SECTION 5. The Ashland Site Design and Use Standards Handbook, Street Tree Standards, (pages 29 to 30), as adopted by Ordinance and authorized in Section 18.72.080, are hereby amended to read as follows: E. Street Tree Standards Approval Standard. All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees. II-E-1) Location for Street Trees Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 8 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standards established by the Department of Community Development. II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follow: 1) Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. 2) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 13 of 15 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. 3) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. 4) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. 5) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. 6) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least 4-0 25 square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. SpaGe between the •Fee and s rh ~^-a hirer-ks Tree wells shall be covered by tree grates in accordance with city specifications. 7) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. 8) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tee. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be . utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 14 of 15 SECTION 6 Severability. If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other sections, provisions, clauses, or paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 7. Savings Clause. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement or other land use actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or actions commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. SECTION 8. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 6- 8) need not be codified. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 2008 John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Arterial Setback Ordinance: June 17, 2008 Second Reading Page 15 of 15 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.24.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code Increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 5 minutes Question: Should Council approve the Ordinance to increase the Transient occupancy Tax (Hotel/Motel Tax) effective October 1, 2008? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance by its second reading. Background: This is the second reading of the Ordinance duly noticed, approved and read by title on June 3, 2008. Related City Policies: Financial Management Policies Council Options: Council may approve the above tax rates by second reading, may decrease the tax rates or defer action to gather more information. Potential Motions: Council moves to approve second reading of the Ordinance as presented. Attachments: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.24.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code Increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.24.020 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE INCREASING THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX Annotated to show deletieas and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold ' and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, ORS 320.350(6) authorizes local governments to increase transient occupancy taxes provided certain limitations and restrictions are imposed on the funds collected; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland conducted two public forums, several public meetings and a public hearing , the later being on June 3, 2008 on the question of whether the City's seven percent (7%) transient occupancy tax should be increased, by what percentage and for what purpose; and WHEREAS, after due consideration of input from the public, staff and due deliberation, the City of Ashland finds it necessary and desirable to increase the City's transient occupancy tax by two percent (2%) to promote tourism, tourism-related facilities, economic development and other appropriate purposes consistent with the limitations in state law for use of such funds; and THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. AMC 4.24.020 is amended to read as follows: 4.24.020 Tax Imposed. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of seven (7-%) nine f9%1 percent of the rent charged by the operator. Said tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City which is extinguished only by payment to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. The operator shall collect and record the tax into the record when rent is collected, if the operator keeps records on the cash basis of accounting, and when earned if the operator keeps records on the accrual accounting bases. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the Tax Administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the Tax Administrator. SECTION 2. CLASSIFICATION OF THE FEE. The tax specified in Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.24.020 as set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance is classified as not subject to the limits of section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. Ordinance No. Transient Occupancy Tax Amendment Page 1 of 2 The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE. Notwithstanding this amendment, the City ordinances in existence at the time any legal action for collection, enforcement or other purpose authorized or referenced in Chapter 4.24 (Transient Occupancy Tax] of the Ashland Municipal Code that was legally commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases and actions filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. SECTION 5. DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE. In accordance with Article 10, Section 3 of the Ashland City Charter, the City Council deems it advisable to specify a delayed effective for this ordinance increasing the transient occupancy tax to nine percent. Accordingly, Section 1 of this Ordinance shall take effect on October 1, 2008. SECTION 6. CODIFICATION. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the Ashland Municipal Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, and typographical errors and cross-reference corrections, corrected by the City Recorder, provided however that Sections 2 thru 6, unincorporated Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions need not be codified. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Ordinance No. Transient Occupancy Tax Amendment Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Second Reading of An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2008 to and including June 30, 2009, such taxes in the sum of $8,616,000 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative S ices E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.ocus Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 5 minutes Question: Should Council approve the Ordinance to Levy the Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2008 to and including June 30, 2009? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance by its second reading. Background: This is the second reading of the Ordinance duly noticed, approved and read by title on June 3, 2008. It is an ordinance that levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in. the permanent rate of $4.0797 per thousand an amount estimated to be $7,956,000, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $.13 per thousand an amount estimated to be $254,000 as well as $406,000 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2008, on all taxable property within the City. Related City Policies: Financial Management Policies Council Options: Council may approve the above tax rates by second reading, may decrease the tax rates or defer action to gather more information. Potential Motions: Council moves to approve second reading of the Ordinance as presented. Attachments: An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2008 to and including June 30, 2009, such taxes in the sum of $8,616,000... ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2008 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2009, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $8,616,000 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $4.0797 per thousand an amount estimated to be $7,956,000, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $.13 per thousand an amount estimated to be $254,000 as well as $406,000 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2008, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: Excluded Subject to General from General Government Limitation Government Limitation Rate Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $ 1,000 General Fund - Operations $ 3,533,000 1.8119 General Fund -Technology Fee 341,000 0.1750 Parks and Recreation Fund 4,082,000 2.0928 Ashland Library Levy 254,000 0.1300 2000 Flood and Fire Station Bonds 177,400 2005 Refinancing 228,600 $ 7,956.000 $ 254.000 $ 406.000 The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of June, 2008 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of June, 2008. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney CITY OT ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance amending AMC 2.28 - Administrator Delegation Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: City Attorney's Office E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: City Administrat' Secondary Contact: Martha Bennett Approval: Martha Berm Estimated Time: 5 minutes Question: Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2.28, relating to delegation of duties to the City Administrator for acceptance of interest in real property and the renewal of intergovernmental agreements" and move approval of the ordinance? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of Second Reading by title only and adoption of the Ordinance. Background: The City Council often sees routine matters on the Agenda because there is no formal delegation to the City Administrator to dispose of such matters. For example, the 5-20-08 Agenda included two easements for acceptance under ORS 93.808. [The City's acceptance of title to or an interest in real property must be shown on the legal instrument for recording to occur]. In addition, the Council has seen a number of routine Intergovernmental Agreements renewals (IGAs) with the State of Oregon Building Codes Division in recent months. Technically, absent a formal delegation, such matters are to be approved by the governing body. Because there is no need to clutter the Council's Agenda with routine matters, the Department head team discussed and recommends formally delegating to the City Administrator the authority to handle such matters administratively. Matters requiring public hearings (e.g. acceptance of a conservation easement) are not subject to delegation. Related City Policies: City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption procedures; ORS 93.808 (acceptance); ORS Chapter 190 (Intergovernmental Agreements) Council Options: (1) Move to approve Second Reading and adoption of the Ordinance. (2) Postpone consideration. Potential Motions: Staff: [Conduct Second Reading of Ordinance by Title only] Council: Motion to approve Second Reading and approve adoption of "An Ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2.28, relating to delegation of duties to the City Administrator for acceptance of interest in real property and the renewal of intergovernmental agreements" Attachments: Proposed ordinance Page I 061708 Second Reading Administrator Delegation.CC.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 2.28 RELATING TO DELEGATION OF DUTIES TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR FOR ACCEPTANCE OF INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND THE RENEWAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS Annotated to show ~+^'as and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold ' and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, ORS 93.808 requires that the approval of a governmental unit such as the City of Ashland be shown on any instrument conveying title or an interest in real property to the City in order for that instrument to be recorded; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland wishes to delegate to the City Administrator the task of indicating the City's acceptance of routine instruments that convey title or any interest in real property to the City; and WHEREAS, conveyances requiring public hearings before the City Council under state or local law (i.e. conservation easements, open space acquisitions) are exempted from this delegation; and WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 allows the City to enter into intergovernmental agreements with other units of local government; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland wishes to delegate to the City Administrator the task of renewing intergovernmental agreements for the City when the terms of the agreement remain the same, or the terms are modified in accordance with the agreement; and WHEREAS, intergovernmental agreements that require public hearings before the City Council under state or local law are exempted from this delegation; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. New Section. A new Section 2.28.045 [City Administrator - Delegated duties] is hereby added to read as follows: 2.28.045 City Administrator - Delegated duties. A. Acceptance of real property, or interest therein. Except when a public hearing before the governing body is required by state or local law, the City Council hereby authorizes and delegates to the City Administrator the authority to indicate, for purposes of recording in Official Deed records, the City of Ashland's acceptance of real property title or an interest in real property pursuant to ORS 93.808. The Citv Administrator may execute an instrument conveying title to the City or conveying an interest in real property to the City, after approval of the form by the City Attorney and approval of the description of the property by the City Surveyor. City acceptance shall be in substantially the following form: City Administrator Delegation Ordinance Page 1 of 3 CITY ACCEPTANCE (ORS 93.808): CITY OF ASHLAND. Grantee By: City Administrator. City of Ashland, Oregon STATE OF OREGON Z ► ss. 20 County of Jackson I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of .20 , by as City Administrator of the City of Ashland. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: B. Renewal of intergovernmental agreements. The City Council hereby delegates its authority to renew intergovernmental agreements to the City Administrator when: 1) state or local law does not require a public hearing before the governing body, 2) the terms of the intergovernmental agreement will remain the same, or be modified in accordance with the agreement, and 3) the renewal is approved by the City Attorney and the department head that is affected by the renewal. SECTION 2. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. City Administrator Delegation Ordinance Page 2 of 3 Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney City Administrator Delegation Ordinance Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Street Tree Commission Powers and Duties Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Amy Anderson Department: Community Development E-Mail: andersona@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Planning Depall t Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 30 minutes Question: Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of the following ordinance, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.25, STREET TREE COMMISSION, AMENDING NAME, MEMBERSHIP, QUORUM, POWERS AND DUTIES, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of First Reading by title only and move the Ordinance on to Second Reading set for July 1, 2008. Background: The proposed amendments primarily concern the changes to the name, membership, quorum, powers and duties of the Street Tree Commission. The Street Tree Commission began reviewing their Powers and Duties as outlined in Ashland Municipal Code 2.25 in June 2006 consistent with the direction of the City Council for all Commissions. The first change is from Street Tree Commission to Tree Commission. Other recommended changes include added flexibility language to the number of Commissioners from five to seven, changing the quorum language and reordering the existing Duties into a prioritized list. Related City Policies: City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions & AMC 2.25 Council Options: (1) Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to July 1, 2008 for Second Reading. (2) Postpone consideration. Potential Motions: Staff. [Conduct First Reading of Ordinance by Title only] . Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set Second Reading for July 1, 2008. Attachments: Proposed ordinance Minutes from June 8, 2006, September 7, 2006, and November 9, 2006 Tree Commission Meetings 06-17-08 Tree Commission Page I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.25, STREET TREE COMMISSION, AMENDING NAME, MEMBERSHIP, QUORUM, POWERS AND DUTIES, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS Annotated to show delet ens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold Uned-thfGuo and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Street Tree Commission wishes to modify and update the Street Tree Commission Ordinance relating to the name of the Commission, membership, powers and duties, and other requirements; and THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.25, Street Tree Commission is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.25 Street Tree Commission 2.25.010 Established - Membership The Tree Commission is hereby established to provide advice and guidance to commissions, the Council and city departments on all tree-related matters and to involve citizens in protecting Ashland's urban forest. . The Commission shall consist of the actual number of current sitting Commission members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council pursuant to AMC Section 2.25. 020, but in no case shall there be less than five members nor more than seven voting members and three non-voting ex officio members consisting of the Planning Commission, a member of the City Council, a►td a representative of the DiresteFe# Community Development Department and a representative of the Parks and Recreation Department. The voting members shall be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by the City Council. 2.25.020 Term Vacancies The term of a voting Commissioner shall be for three years. Any vacancy shall be filled by appointment of the Mayor with confirmation by the City Council for the unexpired portion of the term. The te.FMS of the eFnbe: c shall be for three . Any Commissioner who is absent from four or more meetings in a one-year period shall be considered no longer active and the position vacant, and a new Commissioner shall be appointed to fill the vacancy. 2.25.030 Quorum Rules and Meetings I Tree Commission Ordinance: First Reading. June 17, 2008 Page I of 4 A quorum shall be defined as one-half the number of sitting Commissioners, plus one, but in no case less than three. If there is no quorum, no official Commission business shall be conducted and all matters advertised shall automatically be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Commission may make rules and regulations for its meetings and procedures consistent with city ordinances, and shall meet at least once every month. At its first meeting of each year the Commission shall elect a Chair, a Vice-Chair and a Sesretarjr.. (ORD 2779 S3, 1996) 2.25.040 Powers and Duties, Generally The ese, powers, duties and responsibilities of the Tree Commission shall be as follows: 1. To act in an advisory capacity to the Planning Commission, City Council and Planning Department Staff Advisor in the administration of the land-use planning process, with respect to tree science and requirements, landscape design and principles, locally suitable botanic species and protection of natural resources. Failure to make a recommendation on any individual planning action shall not invalidate the action. 2. To develop and recommend to the City Council for its adoption ordinances and policies for the planting, care and protection of trees throughout the Citv and to make amendments as required to AMC 18.61. 3. To act in an advisory capacity to the City Administrator and to all City departments regarding tree protection, maintenance, removal or any related issues in the City and on all City properties. 4. To develop and recommend to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their review and adoption a city-wide tree monitoring and maintenance plan for long-term tree care, including irrigation, pruning and other annual activities. Copies of the plan shall be kept in the Office of the City Recorder and the Community Development Department for public review. 5. To develop and recommend to the City Council for its adoption a master list of street trees suitable for planting along city streets, a copy of which shall be kept on file by the Office of the City Recorder and the Community Development Department as well as made available on the internet. The list shall be updated and reviewed as required. 6. To educate the citizenry and to promote public knowledge and understanding of the benefits of appropriate tree planting and care. 7. To facilitate an inventory of existing trees, including historical or significant trees; to identify publicly owned properties in need of sustainable tree- planting or landscaping; and to submit recommendations regarding such enhancement of public lands and rights-of-way and to present reports of such inventories, at the request or direction of Council. A To inyente ~y existing street t:..es, nludinfi r hi 4 al trees and bl' . : ..v PFGpeFties in need of beautifiGatien and plantings, and pFesent a written repo Tree Commission Ordinance: First Reading. June 17, 2008 Page 2 of 4 the City CounGil Gf its findings. B. To develop and rer-n-mmend to the City CounGil for its adoption a master Ast of street tFees suitable fe planting '.1G the st:.eets of the ri♦ Gopy of ~•^h shall be kept an file in the QffiGe of the City ReGGFder and the Department of Community Development fGF publir information. The list -shall be Feviewed as FegWred. G. To develop and ren-ei-m-Mend to the planning Commission and the City Counsil fGF -its adeption a Tree ManagerneRt Plan, a GOPY of whiGh shall be kept on file 4'R the OffiGe of the City ReroFder and the DepaFtment of Community Development D. To develop and Ferommend to the City CGURGil fGFits adoption GFdinanGes and p9liGies for the planting, GaFe and pFeteGtiGR Of tFees throughout the City. E. To aGt in an advisery GapaGity to the Planning Commission In the Iand€= ne. design, _i~_Mle nlnntine~c prole Gtie n of natUF .l vegetation, and tree - re.quir,e.me nts rte' ric~-raT F. To aGt in an advisory Gaparity to the City Admin-istFater and to all Cit depaFtme nts . arding tree. m Mena e.e and related issues in the City and the City's pFGpeFties-. publiG properties and Fights of way. H. To PFOmote publiG knowledge and aGreptanse of the value of appreffiate tree planting and raFe. 1 To develop maintain, and . plots n ..deal street tree lost. 2.25.050 Reports The Commission shall submit copies of its minutes to the City Council and shall prepare and submit such reports as from time to time may be requested of them by the City Council of or the Planning Commission. 2.25.060 Donations Subject to the formal acceptance by the City Council, the the-Commission may receive gifts, bequests or other devices of property in the name of the Citv to carry out any of the purposes of this Chapter, which shall be placed in a special account for use at the discretion of said-the Commission. Penalty or mitigation fees as described Tree Commission Ordinance: First Reading. June 17, 2008 Page 3 of 4 in 18.61.030, C and authorized by City Council may also be placed in such account. SECTION 2. Severability.. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2- 3) need not be codified. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12008. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 2008 John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Tree Commission Ordinance: First Reading. June 17, 2008 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2006 CALL TO ORDER -Chair Bryan Holley called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on June 8, 2006 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Bryan Holley David Chapman, arrived at 7:45 .m. Mar Pritchard • Laurie Sager Staff Present Ted Loftus Am Anderson, Assistant Planner Steve Siewert Anne Rich, Parks Department Carol Schwendener, Account Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 2, first paragraph under applicant testimony, Commissioner Siewert's name was misspelled. Pritchard/Sager m/s to approve the minutes of May 5, 2006. Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of May 5, 2006 were approved as corrected. PUBLIC FORUM None present PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2006-00878 is a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 30-inch Ponderosa Pine Tree from the property located at 1505 Siskiyou Boulevard. The tree proposed for removal is located partially within the Walker Avenue right-of-way. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-I; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 IE 15 BA; TAX LOT: 100 APPLICANT: Steve Meister Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - All the Commissioners did a site visit. Holley acknowledged he had conversations with Robbin Pearce as well as sending out an email. Sager also sent out an email. Robbin Pearce, City of Ashland Water Conservation Auditor & Inspector, was present to answer questions. The Commissioners agreed that this Planning Action had been very confusing. Sager noticed that there was construction happening on the site along with a sign that reads for lease or sale. She wondered if there was some sort of development proposal attached to the Planning Action. Amy reviewed the history of this Planning Action, read the staff report and addressed the questions in Holley's email. Amy stated that all Tree Removal's are processed as Staff Permits. Originally the application came for a Street Tree Removal Permit. Pearce processes all Street Tree Removal Permits and historically all Street Trees, irregardless of size, have been processed through 13.16. Holley had pointed out that under 18.61 it talks about all significant trees which is a tree greater then 18" in DBH, under the control of the City of Ashland, is subject to 18.61. Consequently the applicant was told they would need to go through 18.61 Tree Removal for a Street Tree Permit. Since the owner is the City of Ashland it created a strange situation which staff is working on to remedy at this time. Amy explained that Pearce has the ability to do Street Tree Removal permits much faster then Planning Actions that take a minimum of 30 days. Staff permits have a 100 foot noticing area and do not require that a sign be posted on the property. There is a 10 day time period allotted for citizens or staff to call it up to a public hearing. This notice went out as a Staff Permit for Tree Removal that staff called up to a public hearing. Amy informed the Commissioners that there is no development proposed at this time. The plans that the Tree Commission was given to review showed a gas station on the site and did not show the tree that was to be removed. Amy stated that the plans were from an old survey that was provided bythe Public Works department to Mr. Meister and he didn't white out the gas station. It is not on the site. Amy explained that the applicant is putting in a new sewer line on the site and that is the construction they are seeing. A sewer line is an over the counter permit that does not require any site plans to be shown. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of requiring some kind of landscaping plans when sewer lines are being installed. It was also suggested that during the permit process the applicant is simply asked if there are any trees of 12" in diameter or better within 10 feet of their sewer line since the Oregon Plumbing Codes do not require applicants to provide any kind of plans. Pearce suggested that the Commissioners approach this issue from a different angle. She asked where the Heritage Tree List was? It is a protective measure for some trees and could help in these situations. However there still would be trees not on the list that would not be protected. Holley shared that his concern was not so much about the tree but about the process that the applicant is taking. Amy suggested that if the Tree Commissioners wanted to change the process they would need to have a study session for the Planning Commission in order to change the procedure section of the ordinance. Sager said she would be happy to be part of a sub-committee to develop a set of handouts that would show an applicant how to address 18.61. Pritchard confirmed that what everyone wants is the reassurance that if there is a significant tree on a property that the applicant has looked at every single possibility of saving that tree. The Tree Commission needs to be privy to that process, ideally in writing. Recommendation: Tree Commission recommends mitigation off-site with three (3) six.foot to eight foot Ponderosa Pines. The applicant shall work with the Staff Advisor and Ashland Parks and Recreation Department regarding where the mitigation trees will be planted. The mitigation trees shall be planted within 180 days of the approval of this application. Pearce asked if the issue of landscape inspection by the landscape professionals is going to happen. She would like to see it on the agenda soon. - ACTION ITEMS: Type I Review sign-up July 6, 2006 - Sager, Siewert, Holley August 3, 2006 - Sager, Holley, Pritchard September 7, 2006- Loftus, Pritchard, Siewert DISCUSSION ITEMS Commission Powers and Duties 2.25 -Chapman explained that the Council is doing a review to find out if the original goals for each Commission are still proper. Chapman proposed questions for the Commissioners to think about. A few examples were: Does what your doing match what your duties are? Do you have the right number of members? Do you need three staff members? Does the Commission vote? Would they like to review Pre-Apps? Chapman suggested that they consider a quorum being half plus one and removing Street from the Commissions name. The Commissioners discussed 2.25 and made comments and corrections. Holley will write a draft and send it to Amy who will then forward it to the other Commissioners. Put this on next month's Agenda. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Liaison Reports - Chapman asked if the Commissioners were involved in the Fire Department's Vegetation Ordinance. Amy stated that neither the Tree Commission nor Planning had been involved. NEW ITEMS Amy distributed the Planting Diagram from the American Standards for Nursery Stock. ANLA.org Sign-Up schedule for back page article. - "Special Care of Trees in Summer" was the topic discussed to write about next. Sager volunteered to help with the article. Amy said Adam is working on doing an internet ballot for the Ailanthus replacement tree. Holley suggested a news release would be a good idea so that the paper could write the article. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Holley adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk 2 C I T Y OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES September 7, 2006 CALL TO ORDER -Chair Bryan Holley called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:04 p.m on July 6, 2006 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Bryan Holley David Chapman, arrived at 7:08 Mary Pritchard Laurie Sager Staff Present Ted Loftus Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Steve Siewert Anne Rich, Parks Department, arrived at 7:10 Colin Guiley Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES Loftus/Pritchard m/s to approve the minutes of July 6, 2006. Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of July 6, 2006 were approved as presented. Pritchard/Sager m/s to approve the minutes of August 3, 2006. Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of August 3, 2006 were approved as presented. Regarding last months Planning Action #2005-01869, 1751 Dragonfly. Sager reported that Mrs. George contacted Mark Knox at Urban Development Services requesting his help to get approval on the lot split. PUBLIC FORUM Jonathan Frank shared his interest in the operations of the Tree Commission and his interest in how the City is paying attention to the native oak species. Mr. Frank said that in order to maintain a healthy community it is necessary to have native trees, he especially is interested in the Oregon White Oak. Tracy Harding from the Bike and Pedestrian Commission was present to discuss the upcoming Car Free Day on September 22, 2006. The Bike and Ped Commission decided to have the Tree Walk Tour before the events on Oak Street in hopes that more people will attend. She requested that one or more of the Tree Commissioners do a walking tour in the downtown area sometime between 12:30 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. Pritchard needed to check her calendar but if she is available would be willing to do the tour. The Commissioners will email Tracy and let her know which one of them will do the walk. Loftus volunteered to bring trees and plants to the event again this year. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2006.01091 Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 to subdivide the property into 14 lots including 13 lots for single-family homes and one lot for open space purposes for the property located at 203 N. Mountain Ave. A Lot Line Adjustment is included in the proposal to incorporate the western end of the parcel located at 185 N. Mountain Ave (Havurah Shir Haddash Jewish Temple) into the subdivision. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove a 40-inch diameter at breast height Black Walnut tree in the N. Mountain Avenue street right-of-way adjacent to the front of the property located at 203 N. Mountain Ave. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential (P Overlay); ZONING: R-1-5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP # 39 1E 09 AA; TAX LOTS: 1500, 1600, 1701, 1800. APPLICANT: Urban Development Services, LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Sager, Rich, Loftus, Siewert, Guiley and Holley did site visits, Chapman did not. Pritchard did a site visit the last time this project was reviewed. Amy presented the staff report. Applicant testimony: Larry Medinger 115 Fork St. explained the differences in this proposal compared to the last one. He said that in the last proposal a large number of really great trees were slated for removal and with this new proposal they will be preserving those trees. The applicants are still asking to be able to remove the 40" Black Walnut by the road in the event that it can't survive the construction, though they will try and save it if at all possible. It appears like a substantial tree but at this point it is in extreme decline, 60 percent of the trunk is gone and is a potential liability. Tom Myers, Certified Arborist, 2040 Ashland Mine Rd., explained that part of the changes included trying to save the English Walnut because it is a substantial tree and probably the best tree on the lot. It will require working within the tree protection zone but it's odds of survival are quite high since we will only affect 20 percent of the root zone, stated Mr. Myers. Dean Walker, applicant, 245 Meadow Slope Road, Talent, is impressed with the amount of care that Mr. Medinger has brought to the second set of plans. The Commissioners discussed the project. Sager suggested minimizing the width of the driveway in order to try and save the English Walnut. She also suggested having the garage door engineered so that there is no center post allowing the car on the right-hand side to make the maneuver away from the tree. Mr. Medinger agreed that was a good idea. Recommendations: 1) Tree Commission recommends using pervious paving techniques for driveway on Lot 3 under dripline of English walnut. 2) Minimize driveway width on Lot 3 at alley to further reduce encroachment into root zone of English walnut. 3) That a curb, keystone wall, boulders or other form of parking obstacle be installed along driveway of Lot 3 and along south edge of alley to prevent parking under English walnut. 4) All future landscaping and irrigation under dripline of English walnut shall be implemented under supervision of consulting project Arborist 5) Tree Commission supports applicant's efforts to retain Black Walnut under consultation with project Arborist, but supports the possible future removal if preservation proves to be ill fated or potentially hazardous. 6) That all tree preservation, protection and pruning techniques recommended by the consulting project arborist shall become conditions of approval. Pritchard reported that the tree protection has been removed from 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. Amy will bring it to Adam's attention again. Halley commented that he is not pleased with what he is seeing at Dairy Queen. The Commissioners welcomed Colin Guiley to the Commission. Guiley is a student at SOU with a double major in Spanish and Biology. By joining the Commission he is hoping to learn more about City Government as well as adding a different perspective to the Commission. He is very interested in the protection of trees. ACTION ITEMS Type I Review sign-up - October 5, 2006-Sager, Holley, Pritchard November 9, 2006-Loftus, Pritchard, Guiley December 7, 2006-Holley, Siewert, Loftus, Guiley DISCUSSION ITEMS Land Use Ordinance Review chapters 18.61 & 18.62 (Siegel Report)-The Commissioners decided they would each individually review the ordinance between now and the next meeting, make their comments and corrections and bring them back to the Commission next month. A subcommittee will be put together next month who will combine the comments and prepare a draft which will eventually go to the City Council. Commission Powers and Duties 2.25-Chapman reported that the subcommittee is coming up with a template to make all the Commissions consistent. The Commissions will receive another questionnaire soon. Holley has prepared a draft with corrections and will send that new version to the Tree Commissioners for their review. Chapman noted that this Commission is missing the Why you Exist section and said a one sentence blurb would be sufficient. 2 ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Liaison Reports -No reports Amy announced that next month the Fire Department will be coming to the meeting and presenting their proposed new ordinance. Amy will get a copy of the ordinance and put it in next month's packet for review prior to the meeting. Old Business Tree Planting & Pruning specifications-Changes could be made regarding the graphics and content anytime up until March. Amy will ask Adam to send the image to Holley who will then edit the picture and get it to Ann. Tree Grates-options other than metal- The problem with the metal Tree Grates is that it's difficult to expand the area around the trunk of the tree as it grows. It's also a nightmare for irrigation as the tree gets bigger. After some research Sager found one company that does recycled plastic grates but they don't have any removal rings and the diameter size is only a foot. Another issue with the plastic is that it's not very stable so you have to fill right up to underneath it with gravel. She will continue to keep searching and encouraged the other Commissioners to do the same. Landscape Professional Ordinance- The purpose of this ordinance was to watch non enforcement at project sites and try to get the Landscape Professionals to be the point person to work with to make sure that conditions of approval are met throughout the construction process. The Commissioners agreed to send this on to Siegel for their review. Heritage Tee List-There is ordinance language done talking about the Heritage Tree List but that list needs to be finalized. Amy's list of trees was created a number of years ago. It was suggested that the property owners on that list be contacted and asked if they would like to have their tree designated a Heritage Tree. Sager suggested doing an article for the Back page of the Tidings regarding Heritage Trees and what it really means offering interested citizens the ability to sign up on the website. Mitigation Resolution progress report- Amy reported that she is done with the report and has passed it on to her supervisors to review and then it will go to the City Attorney. She will report back after hearing from them. New Items Amy announced that she is expecting a baby on March 22, 2006 and will be taking maternity leave. Yea! Tree of the Year Nomination begins-The Nomination form was in the City utility bill and is on the City Website. Citizens have until Tuesday October 2, 2006 to nominate their favorite tree. The Commissioners will review the nominees at the October 5m meefing. The list of nominated trees are reduced usually to 5 and a ballot gets printed in the newspaper and posted on the City Website. Typically the Tree of the Year voting is the last day of October and the winner is announced at the second November City Council meeting. Ailanthus replacement vote ends-Ginkgo Biloba 77 votes, Sugar Maple 63 votes, Scarlet Oak 27 votes, Zelkova 10 votes and Prospector Elm 2 votes. Amy received a two day notice that the Oregon Community Trees quarterly meting is September 8, 2006. Because of such late notice she will not be attending. Current Balance is $750.00. To post the Tree of the Year ballot in the paper will cost approximately $220.00 Tree Commission Goals -Pritchard said that she has spoken with Linda Chesney at North Mountain Nature Park and is scheduling a Tree Pruning Class for sometime in January. Pritchard left at 9:10 p.m. Media Outreach - The back page article that Siewert wrote came out in the Friday Edition of the Daily Tidings. The Commissioners acknowledged he did a great job. Sager reminded the Commissioners that she would like to have a list of those who are willing to write a back page article so she could get a backlog going. Holley handed out a copy of a Letter to the Editor from David Kennedy regarding Trees in Ashland for those that might not have read it. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Holley adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2006 CALL TO ORDER -Chair Bryan Holley called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on November 9, 2006 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Bryan Holley David Chapman, absent Mar Pritchard Laurie Sager, absent Staff Present Ted Loftus, absent Am Anderson, Assistant Planner Steve Siewert Anne Rich, absent Colin Guile Carol Schwendener, Account Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES Second page under Discussion Items second paragraph down should read Chapter 18.72. Pritchard/Siewert m/s to approve the minutes of October 5, 2006. Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of October 5, 2006 were approved as corrected. PUBLIC FORUM None present PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #39 1 E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Re-review of landscaping at corner of Helman and Van Ness based on changes made at Planning Commission to push back building on that comer. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - All the Commissioners did a site visit previously when this Planning Action was first reviewed by the Tree Commission at the October 5, 2006 meeting. There was no new staff report. Applicant testimony - Mark Knox, Urban Development Services, 320 E Main Suite 202 Ashland spoke representing the applicants. Mr. Knox asked the Commissioners if they would be willing to accept the three foot planting strip with lavender in it and inquired how they felt about a meandering 5 foot sidewalk. The Commissioners discussed this Planning Action and agreed it was a very good solution because a meandering sidewalk allows for a much deeper planting space and room for a tree. Recommendations: 1) That the street tree root barriers shall be installed laterally along the sidewalk, the building and the street. 2) That the Tree Commission supports the proposed meander of the sidewalk to increase the planting area at the corner of Van Ness & Helman streets. Mr. Knox asked to speak regarding the tree that fell at 380 Clay St. Mr. Knox stated that the neighbor had implied that if the tree had been properly pruned it might not have fallen. Mr. Knox strongly felt that there was no way anyone could have predicted that the tree would fall regardless if it had been pruned or not. Tom Myers, Certified Arborist, inspected the tree and confirmed that the tree had rotted and recommended that it be removed immediately. Mr. Myers also recommended that the other trees on the property be pruned. Mr. Knox wanted the Tree Commissioners to know that they are in the middle of doing their due diligence and caring for the trees. PLANNING ACTION #2006-01663 A request for an Annexation and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning R-2 (Low-Density Multiple Family Residential), R-1-3.5 (Suburban Residential) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) for an 11.64-acre site comprised of five parcels located at 87 W. Nevada St. and 811 Helman St. (Ashland Greenhouses). The Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map identifies the site for Single-Family Residential development (R-1 zoning), and therefore, the proposal includes a Comprehensive Plan Map Change to modify the Single-Family Residential designation to Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5 zoning) and Low Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2) designations. The proposal requires Outline Plan and Site Review approvals to develop the property as a 78- unit multi-family development and subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove a 36-inch diameter at breast height Oak tree. Exceptions to the Street Standards are requested to install a curbside sidewalk on one side of one of the proposed streets, for not locating a street adjacent to natural features and to build two dead-end streets. Variances are requested to reduce the on-street parking requirement from 78 to 38 spaces, to reduce the rear yard setback requirement for six of the town homes in the northwestern comer of the site from 20 feet to 12, 14 and 16 feet, and to reduce the required distance between buildings for the 27 cottages in the southwestern corner of the site. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to have the primary orientation to the south rather than the street as required. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: (Current) Single-Family Residential to (Proposed) Multi-Family Residential & Suburban Residential; ZONING: (Current) RR-5 & R-1-7.5 to (Proposed) R-1-3.5 & R-1-7.5 & R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 413; TAX LOTS: 800 & 1100 and ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 4BB; TAX LOTS: 700, 800, & 900 APPLICANT: Forrester & Williams Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - All the Commissioners did a site visit. The staff is asking for a continuance of this Planning Action and Amy confirmed that the issues that were addressed in the staff report that are recommending continuance have nothing to do with landscaping, open space or tree removal. Everything that the Tree Commission would recommend would be incorporated into the final plan that would come back to the Commission as a Type 1. Applicant Testimony - Applicants Valri and Greg Williams were present. Kerry KenCairn, Landscape Architect spoke representing the applicants. Ms. KenCairn said that no tree report was submitted because she felt that the maps were sufficient enough. Ms. KenCaim explained the purpose for removing the trees that are designated for removal. Holley commented that citizens are urging the Tree Commission to plant native trees especially Oaks and encouraged Ms. KenCairn to plant the native Oaks wherever possible. Pritchard said she would like to see more conifers planted. Holley asked if the individual landscaping plans for the various buildings will be coming before the Tree Commission. Amy said that the R-2 development properties are subject to site review and cottages would be required to have separate landscaping plans so they would come back before the Commission. Recommendation: 1) Tree Commission supports project outline plan as proposed. ACTION ITEMS Fire Dept. Ordinance subcommittee volunteers. Sager and Holley will be representatives at this time. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Liaison Reports - No reports given Land Use Ordinance Review (Siegel Report) - Tabled until next month's meeting. Changes to the agenda - Holly asked that Ordinance Revisions be dropped from the agenda, that the year 2007 is added to Tree Walks and that Tree Grates/Sager is added under Old Business. Amy suggested that the Commissioners visit the YMCA and Gathering Glass on A Street where plastic grates were used and the results were undesirable. The Commissioners briefly discussed the future of the Tree Commission. The Commission is down to six members with no new applications received at this time. Holley said there appears to be some political energy in town questioning the value of all the Commissions. The Commissioners agreed to put this on next month's agenda. Tree of the Year Winner: The Pacific Madrone at Mountain View Cemetery won with 18 votes out of 39. The Commissioners discussed the low voting turnout and agreed to put it on the agenda for discussion. 2 Beginning next month Holley will be asking Sager to take over the responsibility of the Daily Tidings Backpage Articles. Commission Powers and Duties 2.25 -The Commissioners discussed the revisions made to the ordinance. All commissioners were in support of the proposed changes. The Commissioners discussed the idea of the metal grates. Amy was typing amemo regarding the City's support of tree grates and felt that it should be written by the commissioners as opposed to her. Siewert will write the article about Living Christmas Trees in time for Thanksgiving in hope that the Tidings will publish it in a timely manner. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Holley adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Water Regulation and Cross Connection Codification / Repeal Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: City Attorney's Off e E-Mail: Appicelr(ctashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 5 minutes pj- Question: Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of the following ordinance, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading.? AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER REGULATION AND CROSS CONNECTION, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 2773. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of First Reading by title only and move the Ordinance on to Second Reading set for July 1, 2008. Background: The Ashland Public Works Department, Water Quality Division requested an update to the City's water regulation and cross connection ordinance including the penalty provisions. Ordinance 2773, the City's water regulation and cross connection control ordinance was never codified and made part of the AMC. This ordinance includes changes to formatting of the ordinance to allow for codification after adoption. The need to codify the ordinance also presented an opportunity to update the City's water regulations to reflect changes in Oregon Administrative Rules and to provide clarity. The definitions were updated to reflect the current assemblies allowed by the Oregon Department of Human Services. The penalty section was clarified to state that the fine for a violation would be $500. Related City Policies: City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions Council Options: (1) Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to July 1, 2008 for Second Reading. (2) Postpone consideration. Potential Motions: Staff: [Conduct First Reading of Ordinance by Title only] Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set Second Reading for July 1, 2008. Attachments: Proposed ordinance Page I 06-17-08 Cross Connection Ir, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER REGULATION AND CROSS CONNECTION, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 2773. Annotated to show d '~s and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold ' and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland wishes to update its water regulation and cross connection ordinance, and WHEREAS, the water regulation provisions should be codified into the Ashland Municipal Code. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Sections 14.05.010 [Definitions] through 14.05.120 [Penalties] are hereby added to read as follows: 14.05.010 Definitions. A. Administrator: the City Administrator for the City of Ashland. B. Applicant: an individual firm, corporation, or authorized agent applying for water service. C. AMC: the Ashland Municipal Code. D. Assembly: a device to counteract back pressures or prevent backflow or backsiphonage. The Assembly device must be on the list of approved assemblies issued by the Oregon Department of Human Services and in accordance with this ordinance. 1) Air Gap Separation: a physical separation between the free flowing discharge end of a potable water supply pipeline and an open or non-pressurized receiving vessel. It shall be twice the diameter of the supply pipe measured vertically above the overflow rim of the vessel and in no case less than one inch. 2) Double Check-Detector Backflow Prevention Assembly (DCDA): a specially designed assembly composed of a line size approved double check valve assembly assembled with a bypass containing a specific water meter and an approved double check valve assembly. The meter shall register accurately for only very low rates of flow up to three gallons per minute and shall show a registration for all rates of flow. This assembly is designed to protect against a non-health hazard. 3) Double Check Valve Backflow Prevention Assembly (DDCVA): an assembly of two independently acting approved check valves, including tightly closing resilient seated shutoff valves attached at Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 1 of 13 each end of the assembly and fitted with properly located resilient seated test cocks. This assembly is designed to protect against a non-health hazard. 4) Pressure Vacuum Breaker Backsiphonage Prevention Assembly (PVB): an assembly consisting of an independently operating, internally loaded check valve and an independently operating loaded air inlet valve located on the discharge side of the check valve. This assembly is designed to protect against a non-health hazard or a health hazard under backsiphonage conditions only. 5) Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Device: a device consisting of two independently acting approved check valves, together with a hydraulically operating, mechanically independent pressure differential relief valve located between the check valves and at the same time below the first check valve. The unit shall include properly located resilient seated test cocks and tightly closing resilient seated shutoff valves at each end of the assembly. This assembly is designed to protect against a non-health hazard or a health hazard. E. Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker: means a non-testable device consisting of an air inlet valve or float check, a check seat and an air inlet port(s). This device is designed to protect against a non-health hazard or a health hazard under a backsiphonage condition only. Product and material approval is under the Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code. F. Backflow: means the flow of water or other liquids, mixtures, or substances into the distributing pipes of a potable supply of water from any sources other than its intended source, and is caused by backsiphonage or backpressure. G. Backflow Preventer: means a device, assembly or method to prevent backflow into the potable water system. H. Check valve: means a valve, which allows flow in only one direction. I._ City: the City of Ashland, a municipal corporation in the State of Oregon. J. Connection Fees: fees specified by Council for the installation of a water service line and meter. K. Council: City Council for the City of Ashland, Oregon. L. Cross connection: means any actual or potential unprotected connection or structural arrangement between the public or user's potable water system and any other source or system through which it is possible to introduce into any part of the potable system any used water, industrial fluid, gas, or substances other than the intended potable water with which the system is supplied. Bypass arrangements, jumper connections, removable sections, swivel, or change-over devices, and other temporary or permanent devices Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 2 of 13 through which, or because of which, backflow can occur are considered to be cross connections. M. Customer: any individual firm or corporation receiving water service from the City. N. Customer Facilities and/or equipment: facilities and/or equipment located on customer premises used for receiving, controlling, applying, and/or utilizing City water. 0. Customer Control Valve: a valve installed at or near the outlet of water meter for use by customer to control water to premises. P. Director: the Public Works Director or Engineer for the City of Ashland. Q. Federal: the United States of America. Environmental Protection Agency. R. Hydrant: a device providing City water for fire protection; examples include fire hydrants and standpipes. S. Main Line: a publicly owned and operated water line that serves more than one customer. Water mains for residential areas shall have a minimum inside diameter of six (6) inches. Water mains for nonresidential areas shall have a minimum inside diameter of eight (8) inches. T. OAR: Oregon Administrative Rules. U. Premises: a customer tract of land, structure(s) and/or building(s) receiving City water service through a single water meter. V. Private Water Main: a water main installed by customer to serve customer's premises. A private water main may provide, but is not limited to, private hydrants, private fire protection systems, landscape irrigation, multiple buildings or customer's equipment. W. Private Water System: any water system for water supply other than the City water system. Examples include: wells, springs, ponds, streams, and the Talent Irrigation District water. X. PSI or psi: pounds per square inch; a measure of fluid pressure. Y. Regular Working Hours: Winter from 8:00am to 4:30pm and summer from 7:00am to 3:30pm. Monday through Friday, except holidays. Z. Service Connection: City owned water service line and water meter. AA. State: the State of Oregon Department of Health and/or Department of Environmental Quality. BB. _Temporary Service Connection: a service connection installed for circuses, bazaars, fairs, construction work, or similar short term temporary usage, the location of such is to be determined by City. CC. Uniform Plumbing Code: the latest edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code as adopted and/or amended by the State. DD. Water Meter: a device for measuring water flow to water supply line housed in an approved meter box and located between the water service line and water supply line. EE. Water Meter - Exempt: a water meter as defined above for a use that does not return water to the City of Ashland sanitary sewer Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 3 of 13 system. Such meters will be exempt from sanitary sewer charges. Examples of exempt meters are meters used for landscaping or a self-contained process such as juice or soft drink manufacture. FF.Water Service: the City's act of providing potable water to customers through a service line and water meter to a customer: it may also include a backflow prevention device as determined by the City. GG. Water Service Line: the pipe, valves, and appurtenances located between main line and water meter. HH. Water Supply Line: a customer owned waterline located between water meter and plumbing on the premises. II. Water System: the City owned and operated water system, which includes, but is not limited to, water treatment facilities, dams, reservoirs, pumps, water mains, fire hydrants, and appurtenances. 14.05.020 Water Service Line and Water Meter. A. Water Service Line. 1) Location. The City shall install the water service line in a location approved by City. The water service line shall be installed between the water main and the customer's property line. If Customer requests an alternate location on customer's property and City approves the location, an easement to the City shall be provided by customer for location of City approved water service line or water meter. The Customer will pay all costs. 2) Size. The water service line size shall be in accordance with Uniform Plumbing Code. The minimum size of a water service line shall be three quarters inch (3/4") inside diameter. The diameter of the water service tine shall not be less than the diameter of the water supply line. B. Water Meters Including Exempt Meters. 1) Location. A water meter shall be installed by City at the termination of a water service line. The water meter shall be located at the property line on public right-of-way or public propertv. If the Customer requests an alternate location on customer's propertv, and City approves the location, an easement to the City shall be provided by customer to allow the City to install the City approved water service line or water meter. Customer will pay all costs. 2) Size. The water meter size shall be determined by the City based on the Uniform Plumbing Code and water meter manufacturer's recommendation. The minimum size meter is three-quarters inch (3/4") inside diameter and not less than diameter of water supply line. C. Water Meter Accuracy. Customer may request a water accuracy test. Prior to the request being granted, customer shall deposit an amount Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 4 of 13 with the City, as established by Council. If the water meter accuracy test is within ±5% of manufacturer's standard, customer shall forfeit deposit. If the water meter accuracy check exceeds ±5 of manufacturer's standard, City shall install a replacement water meter and deposit shall be refunded to customer. D. Installation Charges. Installation charges for water service lines and water meters shall be established by Council. E. System Development Charge (SDC). A reimbursement fee, a public improvement charge or a combination assessed and collected as specified in Section 4.20.700 of the AMC. F. Access to Service Connection. Customer shall keep premises free from any and all rubbish or material which would prevent City from having free access to any service connection and/or water meter. G. Ownership and Maintenance. 1) City is the owner of service connection. Authorized City personnel shall install and maintain service connections at City's expense. If a customer damages the service, the customer is liable for all costs of repair and/or replacement incurred, and the Customer shall be billed by the City for all the costs. 2) Customer is the owner of the water supply line and is responsible for construction, repair, and maintenance of the water supply line. H. Joint Water Services. City may, at City option, serve two (2) or more premises with one water service line. The size of a joint water service line shall be determined by the City based on Uniform Plumbing Code standards and the water meter manufacturer's recommendations. 1. Sub-Meters. Sub-meters are water meters installed by customer for the convenience of customer. City will not furnish or read sub-meters. J. Change in Size or Location of Water Service Line and/or Water Meter. A customer requesting a change in location or size of a water service line and/or water meter, shall be liable for all costs incurred by City as established by Council. City shall approve all relocations. K. Water Service Line or Private Water main. City shall discontinue water service when a private water main or supply or private appurtenance(s) are not constructed or properly maintained by the customer in accordance with City, State, or Federal laws and these water regulations. L. Customer's Control Valve(s). Customer is required to install a control valve which controls the water supply to customer premises. Customer control valve shall be located between the City water meter and the customer water supply line. The purpose of customer control valves is to provide customers with a method of discontinuing water service to their premises. The cost of furnishing and installing customer control valves by the City will be as established by Council. 14.05.030 Temporary Service Connection. Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 5 of 13 A. Time Limit. Temporary service connections shall be disconnected not more than ninety (90) days from the date of installation. An extension may be granted by the City upon request from the customer. B. Charges for Installation. The customer shall be required to deposit with the City the following amounts as established by Council: 1) Estimated cost of installation and removal of temporary service connection. 2) Estimated cost of water served through the temporary service connection. 3) Cost equal to the value of the temporary service connection. C. Refund of Charges for Installation. 1) Refund. If the deposit exceeds the City's costs, the City shall refund the customer deposit less the City's cost of removing the temporary service connection. 2) Additional Billing. If the deposit is less than the City's costs, the customer shall pay the additional costs to City. Permanent water supply lines shall not be connected to water service lines until costs are paid in full. D. Charges for Water Served. Charges for water shall be based on standard water rates established by Council. E. Responsibility for Temporary Water Service. The applicant and/or customer is responsible for all damage and/or maintenance required for temporary water service beginning at the time of installation and ending at the time of removal by City. 14.05.040 Hydrants. A. Use of Hydrants. 1) No person shall tamper, damage, or use water from a hydrant without first obtaining written approval from the Director or designee. 2) Some city owned hydrants exist outside the corporate City limits. The use of such hydrants is restricted to City and authorized personnel only. Anyone desiring to use these hydrants must obtain written approval from the Administrator or designee. B. Relocating Hydrants. 1) Cost. If an applicant and/or customer requests relocation of a fire hydrant the applicant and/or customer shall be liable for all costs incurred. 2) Deposit. A deposit in the amount of estimated costs of relocating the hydrant shall be required. If the deposit exceeds the actual costs, the applicant and/or customer shall be refunded their deposit less actual cost. If the deposit is less than City's costs, the additional costs shall be due and payable prior to activation of the hydrant. Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 6 of 13 3) Fire Department Approval. The applicant and/or customer shall receive written approval from the Ashland Fire Department prior to requesting relocation of a hydrant. 14.05.050 Responsibility for Customer Facilities and/or Equipment. A. Condition of Customer Facilities. The customer shall install and maintain, in a good and safe condition, all facilities and/or equipment required for receiving, controlling, applying and/or utilizing City water. The City shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by improper installation, negligence, want of proper care, wrongful act(s) of customer or customer's tenants, agents, employees, contractors, licensees, or permiftees installing, maintaining, using, operating, or interfering with customer's facilities and/or equipment. B. Water Service Billing Adjustments. No reduction in charges for water service shall be made for any cause, including leaks, freezing or similar instances. However, if the customer's facilities and/or equipment include facilities that are beyond the customer's control, the customer makes an immediate and diligent effort to repair the break as soon as possible after its discovery, and circumstances warrant it, such as with a break-in, the City, upon written request by the customer, may make an adjustment to the water service charge. The adiustment shall be based on previous years usage for the same billing period. Adjustments shall not exceed 50% of the difference between current and previous usage. All adjustments shall be made in accordance with the AMC. C. Damage to Customer Facilities. The City shall not be responsible for damage to property caused by customer's facilities and/or equipment when, or while, water service is in use by the City for repair or replacement of water mains, water services, or similar City owned and operated facilities relating to the production, treatment, or distribution of water to the customer's facilities. When possible the City will make a reasonable aftempt to notify the customer of such activity. 14.05.060 Backflow Prevention. A. Purpose. The purpose of cross connection and backfow control is to protect the City's water system from contamination or pollution due to existing or potential cross connections. B. Cross Connections Regulated. All current or future cross connection devices shall be installed, used, or maintained in accordance with this Chapter. C. Backflow Prevention Assembly Requirements. 1) Customers adding chemicals or other substances to City water shall notify the City immediately. Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 7 of 13 } 2) Approved backflow prevention assemblies shall be installed at the location service connection, or as determined by the City certified cross connection control inspector. Customer shall be liable for all associated costs. 3) Customer's water supply line and plumbing shall be open for City inspection. City authorized representative shall determine if structural or sanitary hazards exist due to cross connection devices. Upon the City's awareness of a hazard, the City shall discontinue service to premises. Water service shall resume following correction, inspection, and City approval of the customer's corrections. 4) Backflow protection shall be installed when cross connection devices exist. The degree of the hazard shall determine the correction needed. (a) Premises with a private water system connected, or intended to be connected, to the City water system shall be protected by an approved air gap separation or an approved reduced pressure principle backflow prevention device. The City discourages such cross connections because of the high potential for backflow into the City water system. The City reserves the right to refuse such connections. (b) Premises that contain materials dangerous to health that could enter into the City's water system shall install a an approved air gap separation or an approved reduced pressure principle backflow prevention device. (c) Premises using or storing objectionable substance not hazardous to health shall protect the City water system by installing an approved double detector check valve assembly or installing an approved pressure vacuum breaker. (d) Irrigation systems may be protected by atmospheric and pressure vacuum breakers. A double detector check valve assembly shall be installed if systems are subject to flooding, backpressure, or if compressed air is used to winterize the system. (e) When water, gases, chemicals, or foreign substances that may contaminate the public water system as a result of backflow or backsiphonage are placed in the system, a reduced pressure principle backflow prevention device or an air gap separation shall be installed. 5) All City equipment using City water within the City water system shall protect the water with an approved device. Examples are street sweepers, fire trucks, and tanker or flusher trucks. 6) Installation of backflow protection devices shall comply with the installation guidelines defined in these rules. Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 8 of 13 7) Customer shall keep backflow prevention devices in good working condition at all times. Customer shall have annual inspection and leakage tests by an individual certified by the State. Additional inspections shall be required when successive inspections indicate failure. Customer shall be financially liable for inspections and tests performed by City or private certified individuals. City shall be responsible for tests being completed in a timely manner. Defective backflow prevention devices shall be repaired, overhauled, or replaced at customer expense. All backflow prevention device testing records shall be submitted to the City Records of such tests, repairs, and overhauls shall be maintained by the City. 8) Existing backflow prevention devices, which do not meet requirements of these rules, but were approved devices at the time of installation, and have been properly maintained, shall be excluded from the requirements of these rules except for the requirement in subsection 14.05.060(C)(7). The City water system must be protected in a method as determined by City. Whenever an existing device is relocated the device shall meet requirements of these regulations. 9) If internal cross connections are not correctable, or an intricate plumbing arrangement makes it impractical to determine if a cross connection exists, City shall determine what backflow prevention devices are required. 10) All installation shall be in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. 11) All new construction plans shall be submitted to the Director or designee for approval. 12) If a backflow prevention device is required to accomplish the purpose of these regulations, installation shall be made by a certified cross connection specialist. 13) If an appropriate cross connection application has not be filed with and approved by the City, water service shall be discontinued. 14) Pursuant to the State Health Division OAR Chapter 333, Division 61, an approved Double Check Valve Assembly (DCVA) shall be the minimum backflow protection for fire line services. (a) A Double Detector Check Valve Assembly (DDCVA) is required by City. (b) Systems that incorporate an antifreeze loop containing any type of chemical shall have an approved Reduced Pressure Principle Device installed on the antifreeze loop. D. Installation Requirements. To ensure proper operation and accessibility of all backflow prevention assemblies, the following is required: Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 9 of 13 1) No part of the backflow prevention assembly shall be submerged or installed in a location subiect to flooding. If a backflow prevention assembly is installed in a vault or basement, adequate drainage shall be provided. (a) DDCVA's may be installed below grade in a vault, provided that plugs are installed in the test cocks. 2) Assemblies must be installed at the connecting point of the City water service line. Alternate locations must be approved by the Director or designee prior to installation. 3) Assemblies must be protected from freezing and/or other severe weather conditions. 4) Backflow prevention assemblies shall be approved by the State of Oregon Health Division and the City. 5) Assemblies specifically approved b the Oregon Health Division for vertical installation shall be installed FM. 6) Assemblies shall be accessible for maintenance and testing. Devices 2" and smaller shall have a minimum 6" clearance on all sides of the device. All devices larger than 2" shall have a minimum clearance of 12" on the back side, 24" on the test cock side, 12" below the device, and 36" above the device. 7) Any assembly installed inside premises shall be readily accessible during the City's regular working hours. 8) If an assembly is installed inside of premises, 4' above the floor and 2.5" or larger, the assembly must be equipped with permanently installed scaffolding approved by the City. Installation must also meet the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and the State of Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Codes. 9) Reduced Pressure Principle Assemblies may be installed in a vault only if relief valve discharge can be drained to daylight through a "boresight" type drain. The drain shall be of adequate capacity to carry the full rated flow of the device and shall be screened on both ends. 10) An approved air gap shall be located at the relief valve orifice. This air gap shall be at least twice the inside diameter of the incoming supply line as measured vertically above the top rim of the drain and in no case less than 1 11) When a backflow device is deemed necessary by the City, the model of assembly and installation plans shall be submitted to the City Water Department for approval prior to installation. 12) Upon completion of installation, the City shall be notified and all devices must be inspected and tested by certified personnel. All backflow devices must be recorded with the City. Registration records shall provide the installation date, make, model, serial number of backflow device, and the initial test report. Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 10 of 13 • Any variances from these installation requirements shall be requested in writing by the customer and approved by the Director or designee in writing prior to device installation. E. Access to Premises. Authorized employees of the City, with proper identification, shall have access during reasonable hours to all parts of the premise. If a customer refuses to give the City access to the premise for the purpose of inspection after receiving reasonable notice of the inspection at a reasonable time, then either a reduced pressure principle assembly shall be installed at the service connection to customer's premise at customer's expense by City the City. As an option the City may discontinue water service to the premises. F. Annual Testing and Repairs. All assemblies installed by a customer as required by the City shall be tested immediately upon installation and then annually by a state certified tester. All such assemblies found not functioning properly shall be promptly repaired or replaced. The City may deny or discontinue water service to the premise for noncompliance of testing and/or repairs. All testing and repairs are the financial responsibility of the customer. G. Variances. Any variances from these requirements shall be requested in writing by the customer and approved by the Director or designee prior to device installation. H. Cost of Compliance. All costs associated with purchase, installation, inspections, testing, replacement, maintenance, parts, and repairs of the backflow device are the responsibility of the customer. 1. Termination of Service. Failure on the part of the customer to discontinue the use of all cross connections and to physically separate cross connections is sufficient cause for immediate discontinuance of water service to the premises. OAR Chapter 333, Division 61. The Director or designee shall make said determination. 14.05.070 Inspection of Premises. The City reserves the right to inspect the customer's premises if there is reason to believe that an unsafe condition exists. The City may refuse water service and disconnect the service connection from the water supply line if the plumbing, appliances or equipment using the water are dangerous, unsafe or not in compliance with all City, State or Federal laws or standards. 14.05.080 Grounding Wire Attachments. The attachment of any ground wire(s) to any plumbing or water supply line shall be at the customer's risk. The City assumes no liability for damage to customer's premises or persons on customer's premises caused by the ineffectiveness of such a grounding wire or system. The City shall hold customer liable for any damage to City property caused by customer's grounding wire or system. Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 11 of 13 14.05.090 Surge Control. A. City Control. The City may discontinue water service if customer's facilities and/or equipment create excessive pressure surges in Citv water system. The Director or designee shall determine "excessive pressure surges." B. Customer Responsibility. If the applicant and/or customer's facilities and/or equipment creates excessive pressure surges in the City water system, the applicant and/or customer shall be responsible to install the City approved surge control equipment and maintain the surge control equipment in proper operating order at applicant/customer's expense. If the City determines excessive pressure surges from the applicant and/or customer's facilities and/or equipment has caused damage to the City water system, the City may bill the customer for cost of repairs of said damage. 14.05.100 Pressure and Supply. The City assumes no responsibility for loss or damage caused by lack of water volume or water pressure. The City agrees to provide water service to the applicant and/or customer at pressures and volumes as are available in the water system. Water service is subject to shut-downs and variations required for the operation and maintenance of the water system. 14.05.110 Noncompliance with Regulations. The City may discontinue water service if the customer fails to comply with this ordinance. The cost of discontinuing and restoring water service to the customer shall be established by the Council. 14.05.120 Penalties. A violation of this section shall be punishable by a minimum fine of $500 upon conviction. SECTION 2. Repeal. The City of Ashland Ordinance No. 2773 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Any municipal code provisions in conflict with the provisions contained herein are also hereby repealed. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 12 of 13 shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to 'bode', "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor, Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Cross Connection Codification and Repeal Ordinance 2773 Page 13 of 13 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Lawn Sprinkler Ordinance Amendment: AMC 15.16.170 Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: City Attorney's Office E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None /1 Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Be I/f Estimated Time: 5 minutes 6 A Question: Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of the following ordinance, and move the ordinance onto Second Reading.? AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAWN SPRINKLERS, PROVIDING A PENALTY, AND AMENDING AMC SECTION 15.16.170. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of First Reading by title only and move the Ordinance on to Second Reading set for July 1, 2008. Background: The Ashland Public Works Department, Water Quality Division requested an update to the City's water regulation and cross connection ordinance including the penalty provisions. Because of Charter limitations, the maximum fine permitted for a violation, not a crime, is five hundred dollars. Cross connection creates a serious public health threat and warrants the maximum penalty. The proposed codification and update to Ordinance 2773 [City's water regulations] required the amendment of AMC 15.16.170 so that the penalties and terms would be in agreement. The penalty section was clarified to state that the fine for a violation would be $500, whereas before it stated that the minimum fine would be $500. Related City Policies: City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions Council Options: (1) Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to July 1, 2008 for Second Reading. (2) Postpone consideration. Potential Motions: Staff: [Conduct First Reading of Ordinance by Title only] Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set Second Reading for July 1, 2008. Attachments: Proposed ordinance Page 1 06-17-08 Cross Connection Penalty ~r, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAWN SPRINKLERS, PROVIDING A PENALTY, AND AMENDING AMC SECTION 15.16.170. Annotated to show ripiptoo s and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, the City wishes to specify a penalty for a violation of AMC section 15.16.170 because of the importance of maintaining the integrity of the City's water; THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.16.170 [Lawn sprinklers - Cross connections] is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.16.170 Lawn sprinklers - Cross connections A. Lawn Sprinklers. When a lawn sprinkling system is connected to a domestic or water supply there shall be a valve placed so it will shut off the entire sprinkler system and a double check valve assembly shall be breaker placed between this valve and the discharge side of the line. B. Cross Connections. No cross connection as between the City water system and such other sources of water supply as Talent Irrigation District, private wells or springs, shall be allowed. C. Penalty. A violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of $500 upon conviction. SECTION 2. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 3. Savings. Notwithstanding this amend ment/repea1, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section" Ordinance Amending AMC 15.16.170 Page 1 of 2 "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Ordinance Amending AMC 15.16.170 Page 2 of 2